Hi Soren, all, On 14/08/25 at 11:01 -0700, Soren Stoutner wrote: > Lucas, > > Why is the team standard to use two-file includes for Salsa CI? > > https://salsa.debian.org/ruby-team/redmine/-/commit/ > d0af6274cf5cb42deb13a536ee0802fb64b01172
For context: I made this change as part of an effort to uniformize the way our packages are maintained in salsa. See https://lists.debian.org/debian-ruby/2025/08/msg00003.html There was a few packages (< 10 out of 1246) using the single-file include, so I modified them to use what is used by other packages in the team. > That was the previous official recommendation for Salsa CI, but it has been > changed to a one-file include: > > https://salsa.debian.org/salsa-ci-team/pipeline#salsa-continuous-integration-ci--quality-assurance-for-debian-packaging Right. I saw that as a two-step process: first uniformize our packaging standards as much as possible, then discuss possible changes from there. In the email mentioned above, I wrote: > 5/ discuss whether we should change the way we configure CI. I wonder if > it would make sense to have a team-specific include, that would itself > include the salsa-ci's team ones. That would allow for centrally > changing some stuff. I wonder if the should centralize CI configuration, using something like: ------------------------>8 --- include: - https://salsa.debian.org/ruby-team/meta//raw/master/salsa-ci.yml ------------------------>8 This would allow us to use defaults that differ from salsa-ci-team's (centrally enable a job that is disabled by default) or add a custom, team-specific job. What do you think? Lucas
