Sean Whitton writes ("Re: Bug#903392: want support for packaging-only
maintainer views"):
> On Sat 29 Jun 2019 at 02:55pm +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Sean Whitton writes ("Re: Bug#903392: want support for packaging-only
> > maintainer views"):
> >> On Thu 27 Jun 2019 at 05:23pm +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >> > Secondly:
> >> >
> >> > If the user says "use upstream from git" but there is no git, the user
> >> > gets an error message mentioning git tags and that can also say
> >> > something about the other quilt mode.
> >> >
> >> > If the user says "use upstream tarball" but they had git available,
> >> > the result is to silently ignore the upstream history and use a
> >> > tarball import instead.
> >> >
> >> > In keeping with the philosophy of making doing the right thing
> >> > convenient, suboptimals things possible, and requiring mistakes to be
> >> > explicit, ISTM that the tarball variant should mention that.
> >>
> >> "mention that"? Sorry, I'm not sure about how what you say here is a
> >> response to what I wrote.
> >
> > I mean, the name for the tarball variant should mention tarball.
>
> Okay. I do not think what you've written is right, if I'm properly
> understanding its implications. You seem to be suggesting that
> baredebian+git is better than baredebian+tarball, in the sense that the
> latter is a fallback when an upstream git tag is not available. I do
> not think that is how people who use baredebian+tarball think of their
> workflow.
>
> Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding what you're trying to say.
No, I mean that there is a risk of dgit accidentally and unnecessarily
using a worse quilt mode, due to user error.
That is I think baredebian+tarball is inferior to the +git version,
but the latter cannot always be used (depending on the user's prior
choices, we we are not - here - trying to influence).
> > I could make baredebian+git an alias for it. Or, rename it. It's not
> > released yet...
>
> I think it should be renamed. Otherwise, it might unhelpfully imply
> that the dgit developers think that baredebian+git is better than
> baredebian+tarball in some way.
But we do. I agree we don't want to make value judgements about this
kind of thing unnecessarily, but:
baredebian+tarball will always work, whereas baredebian+git will
sometimes fail (wrong git tag, git tag contents are wrong).
People will generally think that it is better to use an option which
will always work, rather than one which might fail for additional
reasons.
Or to put it another way: users who need +tarball need it and do not
have a choice.
Users who can use +git need to be told that +git is better thaj
+tarball because it (i) publishes upstream git history
(ii) double checks that their package is sane.
Does that make sense ?
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
