On Thursday, February 14, 2013 04:53:23 PM Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Feb 14, 2013, at 08:54 PM, Thomas Kluyver wrote: > >I don't think it's a particularly good example, though. Lots of packages > >continue to use the older helpers, and not due to a lack of time - attempts > >to move away from the deprecated helpers still seem to meet considerable > >resistance. That causes problems when newcomers don't want to learn > >deprecated packaging methods, and aren't allowed to update packages to use > >the recommended helper. > > But as a team we do have only one officially sanctioned helper. The others > are deprecated. But okay, let's forget about that for now. > > >Back on the VCS question, I fear that the 'all or nothing' road will circle > >back to 'nothing' for a long time. I think that we should allow some > >packages to live in git without forcing a complete migration, so individual > >maintainers can use the VCS they're more comfortable with. Most open source > >programmers have at least a basic familiarity with both, so it shouldn't be > >such an obstacle to working on other packages. > > > >We wouldn't be the only team doing this - Debian Games Team, for example, > >use both git and svn for packaging: > >http://wiki.debian.org/Games/VCS > > As I said, I am against splitting team packages across different vcses. But > I'm also not the team BDFL (well, no one is :), so if I'm in the minority > opinion, so be it.
Not splitting, IIRC, was the one thing that we had pretty solid consensus on last time. There was considerable divergence about what VCS to not split over, but I think most people agreed a common repository was something we wanted. Scott K -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1577886.oEELOcylCh@scott-latitude-e6320