[Debian-salsa-ci] More Salsa CI stats

[Andrea Pappacoda]

Hi Otto,

On Tue Sep 16, 2025 at 8:22 AM CEST, Otto Kekäläinen wrote:
> Lucas just published a new version of trends.debian.net, and now it 
> also includes:
>
> https://trends.debian.net/#continuous-integration-on-salsa

In priciple, this is great! But in practice, I'm not sure how these 
stats are useful in their current state:

- For the Salsa CI one, only checking for yaml files in source packages 
  leaves out a huge number of packages which used to follow the team's 
  reccomendations before 
  <https://salsa.debian.org/salsa-ci-team/pipeline/-/commit/112bee8323519d77c62105315635bb50815c1f79>, 
  which is less than one year ago (!). Also, a salsa.ci.yml file by 
  itself doesn't guarantee that CI is being used, as one has to still 
  open up GitLab's Web UI config pages and tell the service that yes, 
  that file should be used to run CI.
  The only case in which the check as implemented would be useful is the 
  future and hypothetical case where Salsa would automatically run CI 
  upon finding a salsa-ci.yml file in the debian directory, which isn't 
  the case now.
  Until then, I find this check not that meaningful.
- As mentioned already in the patch adding the lintian classification 
  tag for gbp.conf files, saying "the package uses gbp because a conf 
  file exists" is overly optimistic. I personally always add a gbp file 
  to my packages because I find it nice to write somewhere what my 
  branch layout is, or whether this package uses pristine-tar, etc. The 
  only gbp component I personally use is gbp-dch, and that doesn't even 
  require a conf file for what I use it for. Should I start deleting 
  those conf files, and add that information in d/README.source?

Does this make sense? Let me know :)

Bye!