Hi Jelmer On 2019/04/01 11:00, Jelmer Vernooij wrote: >> In general, I think so. I'm unsure about the first "must" though, I tend >> to like that we're not so rigid and inflexible in our policies that we >> can't cater for a few exceptions. For example, I could understand that >> packagers of a VCS system would want to host their work in such a VCS, >> for example... >> >> """ >> $ debcheckout -d bzr >> type bzr >> url https://code.launchpad.net/~debian-bazaar/debian/sid/bzr/unstable >> """ > > As the primary maintainer of Bazaar in Debian, I find it convenient to > maintain the Bazaar packaging in Bazaar but I would be very happy to > see all packages move to Git on salsa if that enables improved tooling > across the archive. > > The Vcs-* headers were a major improvement at the time they were > introduced. At the time it was unclear what the dominant Vcs would be, > but git has long since emerged as the dominant VCS for Debian > packages. > >> I'm not fundamentally against that being a "must", but we should just be >> aware that there might be some use cases that we'll end up sacrificing >> in order to make such a unification of source control hosting possible. > > What kind of use cases do you have in mind that wouldn't work with Git on > salsa?
I didn't spend much time thinking about such cases, but I think your feedback is great because it's probably one of the most obvious cases that I could think of, and if you're open to migrating that packaging to git/salsa then I think that's already a great sign. -Jonathan -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) <jcc> ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian Developer - https://wiki.debian.org/highvoltage ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ https://debian.org | https://jonathancarter.org ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Be Bold. Be brave. Debian has got your back.