[cl-debian] Moving to darcs.debian.org, co-maintenance and other bits

[Pierre THIERRY]

Scribit Luca Capello dies 08/10/2007 hora 02:27:
> obviously, having only one VCS would be easier to learn and maintain,
> but whenever it's possible I prefer to follow upstream, providing that
> they use a distributed VCS.

In my case, it's not to follow upstream that I use Mercurial (most of my
upstreams don't have any VCS...), it's merely because it's the VCS I
know very well by using it for my everyday work.

> This doesn't mean that the packages will be automagically and suddenly
> co-maintained by all of us, but that there's still a principal
> maintainer, while the others can sparely act on the package in case of
> urgency or small fixes.

While I wouldn't really see an issue in having all repositories writable
by the whole group, I'd just note that it's not all that needed if we
mostly use DCVSes.

In any case, I suppose that it would be good to have a minimal set of
rules about where commits go. I would prefer that each package (or group
of packages when they share a repo...) have some main repo where there
is only history of code actually going into Debian. That is,
modifications committed for the maintainers of the package to review
would go in a separate repo, whereas an urgent fix for which there is a
package uploaded by a DD should go in that main repo.

Clear (read: written) rules about who can upload would also probably be
good (i.e. that everyone can write in the repos won't necessarily mean
every DD should upload the package...)

Not that I would mind that anyone upload any of my packages at the
moment. ;-)

> I think that implementing a partial co-maintenance will be anyway
> worth it,

I suppose each package under co-maintainance would be a gain, even for a
small fraction of the CL packages in Debian.

> A further step in co-maintenance would be to allow write permission to
> DDs outside the CL-Debian project

Inbox repos could be a good thing here, I'd say.

> This could be really useful for translators, for example.

And targetted inbox repos here.

> 5) Whatever we decide about a full or partial co-maintenance

As it is a matter of control, I'd suggest to be conservative and make
that an opt-in. If everyone wants to do it, that's great, but if that's
not the case, we avoid any possible conflict.

> we should move the mailing list as well

+1

> we should decide if we want to keep the current project name

I'd vote for debian-lisp or pkg-cl (a short name might prove handy...).

> Always WRT the mailing list, we can also ask for a commit mailing
> list, where all the commit to the different package archives will be
> automatically posted.  Would it be useful?

Depends on the traffic, I suppose. Let's try!

> I found that clc (the Common Lisp Controller) has its own Alioth
> project

It doesn't seem to be really used: no BTS, no tasks, no lists. So I'd
say we host clc in the pkg-cl project.

Gladly,
Pierre
-- 
nowhere.man at levallois.eu.org
OpenPGP 0xD9D50D8A
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/cl-debian/attachments/20071008/021e524c/attachment.sig>