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@levallois.eu.org OpenPGP 0xD9D50D8A