> On 6/14/24 00:50, Russ Allbery wrote: >> This is why people are working on incremental improvements. I think >> such improvements are more likely to get us closer to where we want to >> be than a boil-the-ocean approach that attempts wholesale change to how >> Debian works. It's easy to come up with new designs that in theory >> would be more coherent and straightforward, and very hard in practice >> to avoid that turning into <https://xkcd.com/927/>.
> The reason we have multiple git workflows is because they are > incremental designs that do not try to change the way Debian works, or > the way git works. That may be a reason, but I think the primary reason why we have multiple Git workflows is because we have a lot of contributors, and many of us have strong opinions about how things should work and don't agree with each other. For example, in this thread you have named as problems some aspects of our current Git packaging workflows that I quite like and would be annoyed to lose. Anyway, most of your comments seem to be orthogonal to this proposal and are about other things that you want Debian to explore. Debian is a volunteer, self-driven project, and I hope no one is stopping from you exploring those ideas whenever you have a chance. I'm certainly open to evaluating a design for a more radical change, particularly if there's a clear transition plan. In the meantime, we should not stop incrementally improving the infrastructure we have today. > At the very least, we need to make it explicit which repository layout > is to be used, and version and document that interface, then support it > for several years in the future even as we make incremental changes, > because we want to be able to regenerate packages from the git archive. I believe that dgit-repos already stores a standardized Git representation of a source package. This partly addresses your point here, I think. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
