On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 09:15:25AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > Hello, > > On Wed, Apr 18 2018, Ian Jackson wrote: > > > FAOD I feel very strongly about this. The bug is over a year old. > > Can the Policy Editors please tell me when it would be apprropiate to > > escalate this to the TC ?
> Sorry, I wrote my other e-mail before reading this. > ISTM that we can move towards consensus on this bug by developing > tooling that allows downstreams to make better use of dgit. That is, we > offer them something that does the work that vendor-specific series > files are doing. I don't think that should be a precondition. The examples given are for series.ubuntu, which is certainly the case I've seen in the wild. Ubuntu, as a project, did not ask for this. As an Ubuntu developer, it has never benefitted me. I have only ever seen it used by Debian developers who for some reason considered it useful to "merge" an Ubuntu delta without actually merging it. This is a development antipattern; the source package that is then automatically synced to Ubuntu from Debian is then neither under the guidance of an Ubuntu developer caring for its quality, nor benefitting from the testing of the package in Debian, because the source is no longer the same. There isn't even a guarantee that what gets synced to Ubuntu has ever been unpacked - or *can* be unpacked - with dpkg-source. So yes, please get rid of these vendor series files. It's not how any downstream is actually managing their delta from Debian. > We are actively working on the relevant processes and tools right now. > Let's see what things look like once we reach the end of that work > before escalating this bug anywhere. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
