Okay, I read the whole transcript and I understood the change from Git to SVN.
Just send me the repository adress. Thanks. Regards, Yoann 2014-06-24 20:50 GMT+02:00 Alexander Alemayhu <alexan...@bitraf.no>: > Hei Yoann, > > after sending the previous mail. I talked to pere and asked if he could > look at > the package. The package looked good according to him. pere encouraged me > to > talk about postr on #debian-python. Which I did and pere offered to > sponsor the > package, but the PAPT team did not seem to accept packages maintained in > git > currently. So I decided to change the maintainer instead of going back to > the > past and using SVN. Below is a transcript from IRC to get the context: > > 17:13 < pere> ccscanf: hi. what is the status of the postr package you > are working on? > 17:14 < ccscanf> I think it is ready for a sponsor. > 17:18 < ScottK> barry: Here's another problem of that kind I ran across > recently: https://github.com/bro/pysubnettree/pull/3/files > 17:18 < ScottK> If I hadn't actually be regenerating the files during the > build, I probably wouldn't have noticed. > 17:20 < ccscanf> If anyone here can try the package, that would be nice. > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/postr/postr_0.13-1.dsc > 17:22 < pere> ccscanf: did you ask the python team for git repo hosting? > 17:23 < paultag> hahaha > 17:23 < paultag> no git for python team :) > 17:23 < paultag> svn :) > 17:23 < pere> aha. > 17:23 < pere> I guess that is cleared, then. :) > 17:24 < pere> ccscanf: I guess I'll push your github repo to the > collab-maint repo, then? > 17:25 < pere> ccscanf: btw, refresh my memory. what is the status of the > current postr maintainer David Paleino? > 17:26 < ccscanf> pere: No. I have cc-ed David on most of my postr email, > but he has not replied any. > 17:26 < pere> ok. > 17:26 < ScottK> FTR, it's no git without some work being done that no one > seems to want to do. > 17:26 < ccscanf> pere: Pushing to collab-maint would be nice. Thanks. > 17:27 < paultag> ScottK: olasd did it > 17:27 < paultag> ScottK: but no one commented or anything, I don't think > 17:27 < paultag> git-buildpackage + mergeWithUpstream > 17:27 < paultag> which is how I keep repos anyway > 17:27 < ScottK> Really. > 17:27 < paultag> so nommmm > 17:27 < paultag> Really! > 17:27 < ScottK> I don't think that was all that was needed. > 17:28 < ScottK> There was also the issue of how to make changes across a > stack of repos or do partial branches of one large one. > 17:28 < ScottK> p1otr: What was the list of stuff before we thought git > was OK? > 17:30 < pere> ccscanf: git pushed. > 17:31 < pere> should > http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/postr.git or your github > repo be the packaging repo? > 17:32 < ccscanf> I think it is better to revert back to collab-maint for > the Vcs-* fields. > 17:33 < p1otr> ScottK: > https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2013/02/msg00123.html > 17:34 < paultag> olasd: where's the set of git packages? > 17:34 < paultag> if the consensus is try it out and get mindshare, I'll > just start updating stuff in git. > 17:35 < ccscanf> pere: I can make the change and push to the github repo. > 17:35 < ScottK> p1otr: Thanks. > 17:36 < ansgar> paultag: The last time Git was mentioned it ended in a > flamefest. And the time before too... > 17:36 < paultag> I love svn-buildpackage's workflow > 17:36 < paultag> I hate git-buildpackage's default workflow > 17:36 < ScottK> For git, I like git-dpm. > 17:36 < paultag> I love git-buildpackage emulating svn-buildpackage's > workflow > 17:36 < paultag> so that's what i'll use. > 17:37 < ansgar> paultag: What are the workflows? I use neither of them. > 17:37 < paultag> git-buildpackage has this stupid idea upstream source > should be in the repo > 17:37 < paultag> svn-buildpackage just tracks debian, and merges that with > pristine upstream > 17:38 < ansgar> paultag: I just use git-sbuild which doesn't care if > upstream source is present or not :> > 17:38 < ccscanf> pere: git pushed. > 17:39 < paultag> :) > 17:49 < pere> ccscanf: time to upload? > 17:50 < ccscanf> pere: If anyone is willing to sponsor, yes. > 17:51 < barry> yeah, i've had better luck with git-dpm than > git-buildpackage > 17:51 < pere> perhaps someone from the python app team would like to do it? > 17:52 < ScottK> If it's in Git, (ATM) it's not a team issue. > 17:52 < pere> if no-one volunteer quickly, I'll upload it myself. :) > 17:52 < pere> ScottK: what do you mean? what is "a team issue"? > 17:52 < ScottK> Team packages aren't in git. > 17:53 < pere> is that a statement meaning packages in git are unwanted as > team packages, or a statement meaning that so far no team maintained > packages have been in git? > 17:54 < ScottK> It's a statement that the team only has one repo. For now > that's in svn. If we move to git, we'll (as described in the mail p1otr > linked) move everything. > 17:54 < ScottK> We don't want a split. > 17:57 < pere> ccscanf: this confuses me, given that the team is listed as > the maintainer for postr in git. > 17:58 < ccscanf> ScottK: How is that related? postr is a application not a > module? > 18:00 < pere> ccscanf: did you discuss postr on the team mailing list? > 18:02 < ccscanf> pere: I mentioned it > https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2014/05/msg00125.html > 18:03 < ScottK> pere: I think that's an error then. > 18:03 < ScottK> It should be in svn if it's team maintained. > 18:04 < ScottK> It's the same issue for modules and applications teams. > It's the ~same people. > 18:04 < pere> so far postr have been in the collab-maint git, and ccscanf > based his updates on this git repo. > 18:05 < ScottK> OK. Then it's not really team maintained. > 18:06 < pere> so I guess there are three options. (1) the team accept to > put a package in collab-maint git under the team umbrella, (2) the package > is moved to the python-apps svn or (3) the package is maintained without > the team listed as maintainer. > 18:07 < ScottK> Right. #1 has been discussed many times and rejected. > 18:08 < pere> if the team as ScottK expresses it refuses to touch packages > in git, (1) is out of the question. options 2 and 3 can be selected by > ccscanf, while option 1 need team accept. ccscanf, I guess it is up to > you. :) > 18:08 < ScottK> p1otr: ^^^ am I wrong? > 18:09 < ScottK> pere: We don't want multiple repositories and a git > transition isn't going to do itself. That's not really the same thing as > "refuses to touch packages in git". > 18:09 < ccscanf> pere: I am going for 3. > 18:09 -!- achadwick [~achadw...@nat-alpha.ceu.ox.ac.uk] has quit [Quit: > Ex-Chat] > 18:09 < pere> in practice, I am covinced the nice people on this channel > is willing to provide advice even if the team is not listed in the control > file, so the practical difference should not be too big. :) > 18:12 < p1otr> ScottK is right. Show us the code or go away > 18:13 < pere> p1otr: does it mean I am wrong, and the nice people on this > channel want us to go away if the package stay in git? > 18:14 < pere> (the code is in <URL: > http://git.debian.org/?p=collab-maint/postr.git >, if you want to look at > it. :) > 18:14 < p1otr> I didn't read everything. "go away" is for people who want > to force me to do more work > 18:14 < p1otr> I will move at least PAPT to git at some point > 18:14 < p1otr> I love git > 18:15 < p1otr> I hate people who want to force me to do something they like > 18:15 < p1otr> ... and do nothing themselfs > 18:15 < pere> p1otr: I fail to understand why you bring this up in this > discussion. why do you believe it is relevant? > 18:16 < p1otr> relevant to what? > 18:16 < paultag> It's not, we're just a disfunctional team :) > 18:17 < pere> that seem like a nice summary of the situation. ccscanf, so > what is next? > 18:18 < p1otr> if it's not "you guys should do this and this but I will > not do it myself because you don't like me", then I'm sorry > 18:19 < pere> p1otr: I am sorry to, to have learned that this is not the > place I believed it was, and that I suggested to ccscanf that he should get > in touch with the python team. > 18:19 < ScottK> pere: I think you are misunderstanding. > 18:19 < ccscanf> pere: I set myself as the maintainer, the changes are on > github. > 18:20 < p1otr> pere: I don't have time to process what we have right now, > I don't have time to prepare an transition > 18:20 < pere> ScottK: could be. > 18:22 -!- gudjon [~quas...@31-209-201-19.dsl.dynamic.simnet.is] has quit > [Read error: Connection reset by peer] > 18:23 -!- gudjon [~quas...@31-209-201-19.dsl.dynamic.simnet.is] has > joined #debian-python > 18:24 < pere> ccscanf: pushed to collab-maint. > 18:24 < ccscanf> Thanks. > 18:24 -!- simonft [~simo...@castro.tenthcircle.net] has joined > #debian-python > 18:24 < pere> ccscanf: I guess we are done here. :) Very illuminating > session. :) > 18:25 < p1otr> pere: I'm sorry, I didn't want to be rude > > PS: The log is longer, but I tried to make it short enough to get the > context. Sorry if it is too long to read. >
