Stefano Zacchiroli writes ("Re: Bikeshedding"): > Statement: every Debian package must be maintained in Git on salsa and > every Debian Developer with upload rights to the archive should have > commit/push right to every packaging repository on salsa. > > DPL candidates: do you agree with this statement? > If so, what will be your approach to make this a reality?
What git tree format do you mandate ? Such an imprecation is of little use if "maintained in git on salsa" means for some packages a giant packaging-only monorepo (like used by some language-specific packaging teams), for some a git-debrebase or git-dpm patches-applied tree, for some a merging git branch for use with 1.0-with-diff, and for some a gbp pq branch. > (I'm putting on the side, on purpose, the problem of different workflows > that Joerg has highlighted. Not because it's not a real problem, but > because I think it's a distraction to discussing/fixing the more > substantial problem of access rights and package ownership.) Another answer to this is: The git server you are asking about already exists. It is called `dgit.debian.org', not `salsa.debian.org'. It has the following properties: * Every package has a corresponding git view via `dgit clone'; when the maintainer didn't dgit push, it is a .dsc import. * Everyone who uploads a package with `dgit push-source' etc. already makes it available via the obsolete source package archive. * When you push with `dgit push-source' you make your actual git branch available to `dgit clone'. * You can do that iff you can upload the same package to the obsolete source package archive. Ie the access control is identical. * You can use gbp pq or git-debrebase or git-dpm, and your git branch is magically transformed into a uniform immediately-buildable view for everyone who consumes it via `dgit clone'. So real answer is: everyone should consider `dgit push' and most people should be using it. It should be recommended in policy. 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.