On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 at 22:35, Joerg Jaspert <jo...@debian.org> wrote: > > On 17258 March 1977, Luca Boccassi wrote: > > >> Whatever end goals some individuals may have is *NOT* a good base to > >> decide on how a technical implementation for Debian should be. > > >> If it turns out that this new thingie makes Salsa entirely > >> unneccessary, > >> then so be it. Good for us. > > >> I highly doubt this will happen. The dgit stuff only implements a > >> small > >> subset of features. The BTS does *not* provide what Salsa issues do. > >> There isn't anything even near to do what MRs do. CI integration? > >> Even > >> less so. No idea why anyone should fear this dgit thing will lead to > >> Salsa getting turned off, at this point. > > >> But really, if we end up getting something that makes an installation > >> of > >> gitlab unneccessary, then yay, party. It is not something to be > >> feared. > > > So in other words, I am 100% right to worry about this being the thin > > end of the wedge that some will use to try and kill Salsa. Sounds like > > below NoTA if it goes to GR for anybody who, like me, doesn't want > > Salsa to be jeopardised, then. > > WTF is up with you? Honest question. I just explained, in a load of > words, that this thing is *really* unlikely to provide whatever it needs > to replace Salsa, as there is basically nothing actually providing the > features Salsa provides. And your conclusion is more "trying to kill > Salsa"?
You _literally_ just wrote: > If it turns out that this new thingie makes Salsa entirely unneccessary, then so be it. Good for us. > But really, if we end up getting something that makes an installation of gitlab unneccessary, then yay, party. It is not something to be feared. Not even an hour ago. How can you expect someone to reach any _other_ conclusion? WTF right back at you.
