On 15/08/25 at 20:47 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 15/08/25 at 12:28 -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 08:11:08AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > 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? > > > > This probably makes sense. Do you known how many of the team packages that > > have > > anythine extra in there? From the ones I have cloned locally, at least > > these have: > > > > gem2deb > > itamae > > rake > > redmine > > ruby-build > > ruby > > ruby-selenium-webdriver > > ruby-specinfra > > ruby-unicode-plot > > Yes, see the JSON dump below. > > In short, probably less than 100 packages with custom stuff, mostly > configuration variables, including some custom configuration that would > be worth re-checking. > > It would be easy to preserve the custom stuff while implementing a > transition from the current includes to a team-specific one.
I tried the team-specific include in ruby-peach, and it works. Lucas
