[Debichem-devel] Bug#522560: ITP: bist -- chemical drawing tool

[Daniel Leidert]

Am Samstag, den 11.04.2009, 15:16 +0200 schrieb David Paleino:
> On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 15:13:18 +0200, Michael Banck wrote:

[..]
> > If you (and maybe others?) absolutely prefer git for package management,
> > then we can look into activating a debichem repository at
> > git.debian.org, but I am not totally convinced it makes sense to have
> > two repositories, what do the others think?

I currently prefer SVN. But David will care about bist in first place.
So if he prefers Git, we should accept it.

> In pkg-cli-{apps,libs} and pkg-mono we both have SVN and Git repositories. Each
> maintainer then chooses where to host his packaging work -- and that's what
> Vcs-* fields are for :)

For Debian XML/SGML we have CVS, SVN and Git.

> But, well, I'll conform to what the group prefers!

Well, the check_watch_files-script can be fixed to consider the Git repo
too and AFAIK the PET [1] guys are working on multiple-repo-support too.

IMHO having SVN (following the debian-only policy) and Git is absolutely
perfect. Please just give a short introduction, which issues should be
avoided using git/git-buildpackage so we can really team-maintain it and
help you if necessary (IIRC there was something related to rebase?).
BTW: Does Git now better support the debian-only approach? Or is
pristine-tar an alternative to the debian-only approach? What is the
strategy here?

> > If you prefer to maintain bist on your own in collab-maint, that would
> > be fine as well, of course.
> 
> Maintaining it in a team is always good IMVHO :)

IMHO we have some nice QA-workflow, a low bug-count and we are almost
always up-to-date. So IMHO debichem is not a worst place to put
chemistry related Debian packages ;)

[1] http://debichem.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/pet.cgi

my 2 cents

Regards, Daniel