On 24/01/25 13:18, Colin Watson wrote:
I agree with this. From Otto in another thread:
"It is sad to see that in Debian usage of git is stifled by simple
things like people not agreeing to use a common branch naming scheme
despite there being a proposal for 10+ years now."
I use git extensively for all Debian packaging work, but I find it hard
to bring myself to care about whether the default branch name is
consistent in every package I touch (it isn't, and I haven't been able
to observe any way in which it meaningfully affects either me or others,
so I'm not going to put energy into it when I could do something else
instead). To be told that this means I'm helping to stifle the use of
git in Debian is frankly infuriating and insulting.
The idea here IMO is that heterogeneity (especially in what accounts as
a minor detail) leads to more complex workflows, workflows that cannot
be automated, and documentation that is longer or more complex than it
should be. This, in turn, stifles the use of Git/Salsa ("oh, too
complex, why should I bother?") and that, in turn, stifles the
recruitment of new people in Debian. It's not the people it's the workflow.
I personally experienced all this and I would agree that the negative
effects of not having a standardized Git-based workflow do exist.
Perhaps other people do not feel like that. But I believe (and I see in
#d-mentor) that there is a silent minority of people that got
discouraged due to exactly the above-reported issues.
Regards,
--
Gioele Barabucci
