On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 05:57:21PM +0000, Jelmer Vernooij wrote: > On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 06:48:13PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 05:24:36PM +0000, Jelmer Vernooij wrote: > > > Package: debian-policy > > > Severity: wishlist > > > > > > Policy currently describes Vcs-* headers as something optional, but stops > > > to > > > endorse a particular Vcs. > > > > > > At this point, it seems uncontroversial to encourage use of Vcs-Git > > > specifically here. Apart from technical arguments, it's the vcs that the > > > majority of packages in the archive uses - and thus will have the better > > > tooling, less of a learning curve for other contributors, etc. > > > > > > There are very few holdouts of other vcses in the archive. I count 62 > > > (ignoring those with an alioth URL): > > > > > > * 26 on Svn > > > * 3 on Cvs > > > * 4 on Hg (2 are hg/hg-buildpackage) > > > * 39 on bzr (half of these are actually bzr and related packages, which > > > I maintain) > > > > I do not quite understand. Surely the package need to use the VCS-* header > > corresponding to the VCS used by the repository, whathever it is ? This is > > not > > a matter of preference. > > Sorry, to be clear I also meant encouraging the use of Git as a Vcs - rather > than just > of the Vcs-Git header.
Then maybe it would be a better fit for the developer reference than to policy ? Cheers, -- Bill. <ballo...@debian.org> Imagine a large red swirl here.
