[DRE-maint] getting rid of packages-wip/ in our SVN repository

[Antonio Terceiro]

Gunnar Wolf escreveu isso aí:
> [ I am adding a Cc: to the debian-perl list, as the PET wizards live
>   there and might have a say on this. Also, because the pkg-perl group
>   has some packages which could be moved into a packages-wip
>   directory, cleaning up our main stats? ]
> 
> This thread starts at [1].
> 
> Antonio Terceiro dijo [Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 01:15:50PM -0300]:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > I was just wondering: since our QA report tool [1] supports listing
> > packages not in the repository yet as "work in progress" [2], why don't we
> > remove the packages-wip/ directory from our repository?
> > 
> > This would have IMO the following advantages:
> > 
> >   * the WIP packages would appear in the QA report and we would be
> >     more aware of their status
> >   * less clutter in our repository
> 
> I agree with your motivation, it's good for them to be more
> visible. However, PET's logic is a bit different - And I think we
> could import some changes in our logic from the pkg-perl group :)

Yes, personally I liked very much pkg-perl's changelog-based workflow.
:)

> pkg-ruby extras uses packages-wip for things that have started moving,
> but are still not good enough for upload. Those are... well, somehow
> out of PET's scope, IMHO (although telling us about new versions could
> be good). 
> 
> What pkg-ruby-extras regards as 'work in progress' is packages that,
> in their version in SVN, have an UNRELEASED distribution.

You mean pkg-perl here, right?

> It is customary in the pkg-perl group to always tag with
> "svn-buildpackage --svn-only-tag --svn-noautodch". This means, we
> never have changelog entries such as (taken randomly):
> 
>     liblog4r-ruby (1.0.5-8) UNRELEASED; urgency=low
> 
>       * NOT RELEASED YET
> 
> IMHO, this entry says nothing, and probably will only be bothering us
> later. If the next action we take on liblog4r-ruby is to import a new
> upstream version, we will have to manually remove the entry for
> 1.0.5-8 (which will never exist). What is done in pkg-perl is to
> reserve the UNRELEASED tag for changes made in the package which are
> not ready to be uploaded - Please refer to the changelogs in the
> repository (the smaller number in parenthesis) at the "Work in
> progress" section of the pkg-perl page [2].

I completely agree that such changelog entries are useless and should
be reserved for packages in which there is actually any work going on.

> We almost always have there an invalid changelog entry, starting with
> a TODO: detailing what is missing in that package.

> > I am willing to organize that, what do you think?
> 
> I do think packages-wip is a good thing to have. Maybe it would be
> better to "export" the idea to other groups, and add support for it in
> PET, just as an extra section?

What do you think of Martín's solution of listing never-uploaded
packages in a different section? IMHO it solves your concerns of
differentiating what we meant with packages-wip from what PET meant by
"WIP".

(this way we could move packages from packages-wip to packages and still
have them differentiated from packages that were already uploaded and do
affect Debian's QA).

-- 
Antonio Terceiro <terceiro at softwarelivre.org>
http://people.softwarelivre.org/~terceiro/
GnuPG ID: 0F9CB28F