[pkg-gnupg-maint] moving repos from alioth to salsa.debian.org

Eric Dorland eric at debian.org
Fri Jan 5 00:01:18 UTC 2018

* Daniel Kahn Gillmor (dkg at fifthhorseman.net) wrote:
> On Wed 2018-01-03 00:49:35 -0500, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > Maybe I don't understand the gitlab model but don't we want to create
> > a gnupg-team group and then perhaps add all Debian developers to that?
> I understand that would more closely mirror what we've had on alioth,
> but i'm not convinced it's necessary.
> The advantage of not adding/maintaining a separate group is twofold:
>  0) simplicity for us -- no maintenance for us, as the set of debian
>     developers will already be maintained accurately in salsa itself.
>  1) simplicity for others -- many packages will be in the "debian"
>     project group already.  For people looking for code, or looking to
>     do research, or wanting to make a small contribution, the more our
>     setup is like other packages, the easier it is to encourage external
>     participation.

This one doesn't really make sense to me. The Debian project group will
likely be huge and not very browse-able anyway. People will just put
gnupg in the search box and what group it's in won't make any
difference. Having it in a group project might in fact make it easier
to find related projects.

> What would we gain from having a gnupg-team group?
> ( my thinking on this stuff is influenced by discussions like
>   https://joeyh.name/blog/entry/ending_the_tyranny_of_unix_permissions/
>   )
> > Also is write access for all debian developers really the right
> > permission to grant?
> If there is a DD who wants to contribute to the debian packaging for
> GnuPG, i can't imagine wanting to discourage them :)

I have no desire to discourage them either but this feels a bit too
much like a free-for-all. Having some amount of ownership, vision and
consistency isn't a bad thing. GitLab should really cut down on the
fiction of contributing but reviewing changes is still important.

> And if someone who is not a DD wants to contribute, they can come chat
> with us on whatever our replacement mailing list is, and we can grant
> permissions explicitly.

Why do they need to come talk to us at all? They should just file pull
requests and someone on the team would review and approve them? They
don't need any write permissions to contribute.

> I'm open to doing things differently if you feel strongly about it, but
> i'd definitely like to understand the reasons for doing so.

This all being said I think the pkg-gnupg-maint@ team has mostly been
an army of one (that would be you), so I don't feel like I have a
strong position to object :) I'll still be happy to work on things
when I can no matter what you decide.

> >> Mailing Lists
> >> -------------
> >> 
> >> I remain unsure what to do about this, because we don't seem to have a
> >> clear option supported by Debian for an ongoing mailing list for
> >> discussion :(
> >
> > Can we not create a regular lists.debian.org list?
> see https://bugs.debian.org/876144  :(  Alexander Wirt suggests that the
> listmasters do not want to maintain such a list :/
> Sounds like Werner is up for hosting debian at gnupg.org.  shall we take
> him up on that?

I find it surprising that we're not going to come up with a solution
for this problem within Debian. Should we wait a little bit longer to
see if one emerges rather than rush just to potentially move again?
When are the alioth lists meant to be turned down?

Eric Dorland <eric at kuroneko.ca>
43CF 1228 F726 FD5B 474C  E962 C256 FBD5 0022 1E93
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-gnupg-maint/attachments/20180104/8cd7899b/attachment.sig>

More information about the pkg-gnupg-maint mailing list