* Otto Kekäläinen <o...@debian.org> [250128 00:04]: > I wrote and rewrote this script a couple of times in past two months: > https://salsa.debian.org/debian/devscripts/-/blob/main/scripts/dep-14-convert-git-branch-names.sh > > It's not exactly ideal yet, but it does the job. The name is a bit > stupid, and it only outputs the commands it recommends users to run, > it does not actually execute them (yet). In hindsight it became a bit > more complex than what makes sense for a shell script. Simon also > pointed out that the way the `salsa` script (that this uses) stores > API keys in plain-text isn't exactly ideal for security. > > Jeremy: You mentioned Debian team is migrating branches. Perhaps you > can test this and collaborate on polishing it? > > In general, if anybody wants to take a stab to improve it, feel free > to add me as reviewer in MRs targeting this script.
Please listen to Colin: * Colin Watson <cjwat...@debian.org> [250126 15:35]: > In the situation you outlined, it wouldn't have mattered to me one bit > whether the actual latest branch was called debian/sid or debian/latest; > I probably wouldn't have noticed it either way. What would have > mattered to me was that it wasn't the default branch (HEAD on Salsa). > > So, rather than worrying about the _name_ of the default branch, I'd > like to suggest a change to DEP-14 that I think would have broader > consensus and be more useful. Please re-read his entire message. You started with a goal of making contributions easier for people who are not part of the packaging team for a particular project. You then postulated that standardizing certain things would at least be part of the solution, and so DEP-14 was born. Overall, this is excellent work! Thank you. One of the things you postulated was that the name of the default branch was one of the items that should be standardized. This was a reasonable assumption. But as Colin points out, the real issue is not the _name_ of the default branch, but that the salsa repo _correctly_ identifies the default branch, which apparently is not being done for all projects. This thread has clearly shown that much contention exists for mandating a specific name for the default branch, at least for existing projects. Even if you wrote the perfect script to change existing projects to conform, one that handled all edge conditions properly without human intervention, the amount of churn, not only on salsa, but also on _thousands_ of contributors' personal machines, would be **massive**. And all this when simply mandating that the salsa repo have HEAD set correctly would solve the problem. It has also been pointed out that there are some projects (esp. larger ones) where primary development occurs on multiple different branches. I strongly urge you to heed Colin's suggestion. Have DEP-14 _require_ that the salsa repo have HEAD set to the branch where new contributors, NMUers, and others not familiar with the project should be making changes. Then _suggest_ that _new_ projects use a specific branch name for this purpose. Thank you for both your enthusiasm and your effort on this project. ...Marvin
