On Feb 16, 2013 1:43 PM, "Thomas Kluyver" <tho...@kluyver.me.uk> wrote: > > On 16 February 2013 09:10, Thomas Goirand <z...@debian.org> wrote: >> >> It would be really stupid to only want to "claim" to be working as part >> of the team, that's not at all what I want to do. I'd like to be able to >> help when I can, and receive help when I need, which is the point of a team. > > > I agree there are reasonable reasons to want to maintain something in git, and it's not ideal to exclude those packages from team maintainership just because of the VCS question. Although, if it came to that, the team would be happy to offer advice and assistance for Python packages that aren't maintained by the team. We all want stuff to work smoothly, whether or not it's "our" stuff. > > I suggest we take a poll - not as a binding decision, but to get an idea of the level of support for different courses of action. You're free to attach more weight to the votes of highly involved team members. > > The following four positions have all been advocated in this thread: > > A - Maintain the status quo, in which DPMT packages may only be maintained in SVN. > B - As A, but encourage the creation of a separate team where Python modules can be maintained in git. > C - Allow DPMT-maintained packages to live in SVN or git, so new packages can be committed to git if the packager prefers. Optionally, we could make provisions to migrate existing packages. > D - Migrate all the DPMT-maintained packages to git. > > (I suggest we don't consider other VCSs - while we might have our favourites, I sampled the list of Debian teams, and found very few using anything other than svn or git. So tools & workflows for other VCSs are likely to be less well developed.)
I vote D, and I can handle the migration from SVN to Git, I've done this several times for my work and WYMeditor. Are you interested? > > So I would vote CDBA, in order of preference. > > Thanks, > Thomas
