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

Daniel Kahn Gillmor dkg at fifthhorseman.net
Sat Jan 13 17:31:50 UTC 2018

On Sun 2018-01-07 01:54:55 -0500, Eric Dorland wrote:
> Given that there are already 100+ groups on salsa I would say that
> that's probably not totally realistic.

no big change in debian is totally realistic, sadly :) but we can push
in the direction that we want the project to go, and hope that we end up
closer there than we'd otherwise be.

> But surely you could build a redirector to give you exactly that kind
> of functionality, for any package in salsa, no matter whether it was
> in a particular group or the Debian group?

i could -- but why bother, when i've also got other projects to work on,
and putting stuff in debian/* directly solves the problem anyway?

> But leaving that aside, I don't think it's necessarily malice you need
> to worry about, just disagreements in direction could be
> problematic. If a another developer decides to say, push some patches to
> strip out systemd support and you want to keep that support in, is
> your only recourse the TC? Would the person in question need to be
> somehow blacklisted?

i think if we do end up with that sad situation, we can always create a
gnupg-team organization on salsa and move the packages there.  But i
think i'd prefer that to be a fallback, rather than the default
situation.  I will personally take responsibility for doing that if
anyone on the GnuPG team sees this kind of disagreement happening with
folks outside the GnuPG team.

> I should say that personally, feeling like being part of the group is
> a mild inducement to contribute compared with 

i think this got cut off, but i want to be clear that i am *not*
interested in dissolving the Debian GnuPG packaging team.  I'm just
trying to make the packaging and maintenance standardized and simpler --
any debian developer can of course do an NMU anyway, with or without
write access to the revision control system (so the risks to our users
seem identical in any case), and i'd rather that anyone NMUing any of
our packages can easily push their NMU changes to the revision control
so we can keep track of them.

So i'm still leaning toward putting the salsa repos within debian/, but
i think the outstanding question is how to keep the sense of "being part
of the group", which i agree is a valuable thing.

I see two obvious choices to do this (though i'm sure there are other
possibilities, and i welcome other suggestions):

 a) make an explicit salsa group "gnupg-team", and attribute membership
    there, even though the repos remain under debian/

 b) track the members of the team on the GnuPG page wiki.debian.org

I'm leaning toward (b) because of its flexibility and its capacity to
showcase the particular interests of different team members too.  But we
could also do both!  or we could do something different too.  what do
folks think?

> Huh, that really is a shame that there's no real migration path. I
> suppose the @gnupg.org list is the best option at the moment.

ok, i'll move forward with transferring subscriptions to the new
upstream list soon.  I agree that it's a shame that debian doesn't have
the bandwidth to support this sort of communications channel :(

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 832 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-gnupg-maint/attachments/20180113/bf3912c0/attachment.sig>

More information about the pkg-gnupg-maint mailing list