Charles Plessy <ple...@debian.org> writes: > Also, it is very sad that, as a project, we can not decide whether we go > for 3.0 (git) or not, or have a concrete list of resolvable objections > from the people whose work is direclty impacted by the use of this > format.
We know what a primary concrete objection is. We discussed it at length at DebConf two years ago, and then on debian-devel afterwards. Uploading a Git archive requires reviewing the entire contents of the archive, not just the current code, for licensing issues, which is pretty painful from the ftp-master perspective. There was never really a satisfactory resolution to that discussion. We can upload very shallow clones, but they end up looking a lot like the existing quilt format with single-debian-patch, and it's not horribly clear what the advantages of 3.0 (git) are at that point. Many of the really compelling use cases for 3.0 (git), neat stuff like possibly being able to just push a signed tag instead of uploading or having the package history when you get the source package, aren't very interesting with shallow clones. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87pqa3seyj....@windlord.stanford.edu
