On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 10:42:10AM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote: > On 2019/03/31 09:39, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > > > > Statement: every Debian package must be maintained in Git on salsa and > > every Debian Developer with upload rights to the archive should have > > commit/push right to every packaging repository on salsa. > > > > DPL candidates: do you agree with this statement? > > In general, I think so. I'm unsure about the first "must" though, I tend > to like that we're not so rigid and inflexible in our policies that we > can't cater for a few exceptions. For example, I could understand that > packagers of a VCS system would want to host their work in such a VCS, > for example... > [SNIP] > > I'm not fundamentally against that being a "must", but we should just be > aware that there might be some use cases that we'll end up sacrificing > in order to make such a unification of source control hosting possible. > Some of the packages I am involved in maintaining for Debian live in upstream Git repositories (and I do my associated packaging work and build packages for upload from those same repositories).
I suppose requiring that they be pull-mirrored to Salsa might make sense, but requiring that the primary place of development for Debian packaging actually be in Salsa would present an obstacle for some of my current packages. Of course, that would mean that direct commits to the Salsa project in such an instance would be problematic. It would not surprise me if such a requirement were to cause some upstream developers to give up on being involved in the Debian packaging of their projects rather than deal with the hassle. Perhaps other interested parties not involved with upstream might come along and maintain these packages. In some cases that may be no great loss, but there are enough upstream developers who are frustrated by Debian policies it would seem to be better to be more accommodating, not less. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez
