RE: Representing Debian Metadata in Git

[<rsbecker@nexbridge.com>]

On Wednesday, August 21, 2024 5:38 PM, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
>* Simon Richter <sjr@debian.org> [240820 09:11]:
>> One of the long-standing issues is that there are multiple ways Debian
>> packaging can be represented in a git tree, and none of them are optimal.
>[..]
>> A possible implementation would be a type of Git "user extension"
>> object that contains
>>
>>  - an extension name
>>  - an object type (interpreted by the extension)
>>  - type-tagged references to other objects
>>  - other type-tagged data
>[..]
>
>> Any feelings/objections/missed requirements?
>
>In the current DEP14/DEP18 discussions a lot of discussion was had about how we
>should represent Debian things in git; your mail also goes into this direction.
>
>My *feeling* is we should do the opposite - that is, represent less Debian stuff in git,
>and especially do it in less Debian-specific ways. IOW, no git extensions, no setup
>with multiple branches that contain more or less unrelated things, etc.
>
>I think we should move more towards a setup that is easily understood by people
>not closely following our Debian-specific things. We should avoid surprising things,
>again that would include the multiple branches and any git extensions.
>
>Before pushing for new ways of representing Debian stuff in git, I think it would be a
>good idea to learn from all the other distros and distro-like systems successfully
>using git [1]. Debian is not the only distro that wants to use git to capture changes
>and encourage contributions to its packages.

On the other side (perhaps), git is increasingly being used in the Ops setting for
DevOps and DevSecOps. Production configurations for high-value applications are
moving to storing those configurations into git for tracing and audit. Git is an
enabler for good production operations practices. My $0.02 (and my customers')

--Randall