On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 06:33:44PM +0200, Paolo Greppi wrote:
> I was wondering whether the RFP for patchwork (a console or web based
> patch tracking system) can be closed.
no, even if no one is working an packaging the sense of such open
reports is simply to show that there are some people that had an
interest in the past to package this software. And this is mostly
helpful for people who possible want to step in or need to find other
packages which might conflict with their packages or package name, like
here in your case.
Normaly RFPs are moving to an ITP and closed by a later upload.
> The bug has seen no activity for 2.5 years.
> The interest of this for Debian is probably lower now than it was 5
> years ago, as now we have salsa, which has merge requests (similar to
> github's pull requests).
The intention of patchwork is completely different to Salsa, GitHub,
GitLab and similar.
Patchwork a kind of standard in the development of the kernel sub
modules and a lot ob big IT company using this in their development like
IBM and Intel. So I don't see in detail a dedicated interest for the
Debian project itself and we package software mostly for users. I don't
know of any teams or maintainers which might use patchwork in their
workflow, but I wouldn't be surprised if this is already happen.
> Merge requests are easier to use than command-line patches and should
> lower the barrier for contributors (that was one of the reason for the
> switch from alioth cgit to salsa).
That's for sure true, but there are also downsides. Reviewing changes
isn't always easier (at least in my eyes) and need always a network
> Besides the future of alioth mailing lists is uncertain ATM:
> I am asking because I was planning to use the name patchwork for
> something else:
Given the age that patchwork now has (initial commit 2008 vs 2015 for
ssbc-patchwork) and the completely different use cases I personally
would hereby suggesting to choose a different source and binary name for
the patchwork software for Secure Scuttlebutt.
Why not use ssb-patchwork or ssbc-patchwork as name? I'd prefer the