On 01/19/2018 12:45 PM, Simon McVittie wrote: > On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 at 14:25:57 +0300, Dmitry Shachnev wrote: >> I think for new packages it is better to use gbp-pq based workflow: >> https://wiki.debian.org/Python/GitPackagingPQ > > Is there consensus that the gbp-pq workflow is now allowed? I only > maintain one package in DPMT (tap.py) and every time I upload it I have > to remind myself how git-dpm works, so I'd like to switch it over to > gbp-pq as soon as I can. > > Relatedly, Alioth is going to be shut down at some point, with git > repositories frozen and made read-only, so it would seem a good idea to > start migrating git packaging to salsa.debian.org before that happens. > python-modules-team and python-apps-team groups, perhaps? I can create > a python-modules-team group and migrate tap.py as a sample if people > would like to see an example package. >
should we keep the structure of putting all packages into a separate subdir (aka "sub-group"). i was also thinking about creating a single python-team group with a PAPT and a DPMT subgroup, but apart from aesthetics i cannot think of any good reason to do so. it probably creates more trouble than it is worth. gfards IOhannes
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
