On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 10:04:03AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, Joey Hess wrote: > > Could the maintainers clarify what criteria are used to mark a given source > > format such as 3.0 (git) as "experimental"? > > I hope it doesn't come down to one member of the dpkg team's personal > > preference. > Well, I wrote the manual page, so it was my decision but I believe it's > backed up by my opinion and the one expressed by Guillem: > Instead I chose to mark them as experimental to show that we don't believe > that they are ready to be used in large-scale (like, say, on ftp-master).
Uh, whether they're ready to use on ftp-master isn't up to just the dpkg
team. And if that were the reason to mark them experimental, then Format:
2.0, Format: 3.0 (native), Format: 3.0 (quilt) and Format: 3.0 (custom)
should all have been marked experimental too.
The custom format in particular is unlikely to ever be accepted, it
seems to me; I suspect 2.0 is entirely obsolete at this point; and for
most packages, it's better to choose "1.0" over "3.0 (native)" because
it can be unpacked by more people; which mostly leaves the manpage
promoting "quilt" as the bestest version control format over git and
bzr. Not impressive.
Heck, in /my/ opinion, all of 2.0, native, quilt and custom are less
likely to be accepted on ftp-master as they currently stand -- native
git and bzr support is a much bigger win than any of the others over
what we can currently do.
A fairer summary would seem to be:
Format: 1.0
Default format. (native and orig+diff)
Format: 2.0
Obsolete experimental format.
Format: 3.0 (git), (bzr), (quilt)
Native support for the git, bzr and quilt version control
systems.
Format: 3.0 (native)
Expansion of 1.0 native format to support more compression
types.
Format: 3.0 (custom)
For experimentation with new formats.
Cheers,
aj
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
