Le mardi 06 janvier 2009 à 05:18 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod a écrit : > Josselin Mouette wrote: > > That’s foolish. We are certainly not going to clone 208 repositories for > > all GNOME packages we maintain. Especially when the tools to manage > > Debian packages with DVCSes are still inferior to those we have for the > > current svn+tarball scheme. > > Just because you don't do it doesn't mean that the idea is "foolish". Let me elaborate a bit more. We want to provide self-contained packages, and by them I mean they include the vanilla upstream tarball, and the series of patches we apply on top of them. It is important especially for our QA and security teams that we share the same package format with the rest of the distro, and we finally agreed on a tool-neutral format that will be adopted in the next months. If we want to generate such a format using a cloned repository, we need to make feature branches for each of the patches we currently apply. There are then tools that will rebase the repository using the tarball and serialize the patches, so the rest is mostly automated. This move is affordable (and a clear long-term win) for big packages with lots of patches like gtk+ or epiphany. It is not for most of others, for which we use a VCS mostly as a distributed filesystem. Furthermore, our ability to make this move is independent from the repository format used upstream; the only thing that will change if you switch is that it will reduce our choice of tools. In the end, you have your own reasons to move away from svn, but please don’t use downstream as an excuse. Cheers, -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `- our own. Resistance is futile.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=