Re: HEADS UP: pkgsrc -> git migration starting in earnest

[Thomas Klausner <wiz%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 04:44:15PM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
>     Date:        Wed, 18 Jun 2025 09:42:11 +0200
>     From:        Thomas Klausner <wiz%NetBSD.org@localhost>
>     Message-ID:  <1A3D73CE-B934-4781-ADDB-435E2F4BEAA6%NetBSD.org@localhost>
> 
>   | But *there is no official approval* from core@ or board@.
> 
> Thomas, I don't know exactly what you're looking for, but when a
> member of core@ posts a public message, copies it to core@, doesn't
> say expressly that it is just a personal opinion, and no other
> core members object to it, you can take that message as being
> "official approval" (whatever that actually means in this environment)
> from core.

I'm really glad to hear that, and that I have misunderstood Taylor's
email completely.

> Taylor (riastradh@) sent such a message to tech-repository on Jan 4, 2025.
> 
> That was in response to a message from apb@ (my guess would be on behalf
> of board@, but that message was before my time) in which he (Alan) asked:
> 
> > The NetBSD core group has been asked to make a statement on version
> > control systems.
> 
> Taylor's message was that statement (which should have been obvious, as
> it quoted Alan's message as its preamble).

My view of that email by Taylor was that he answered apb's request,
who was asking for a detailed proposal for switching. He provided
these details.

In my eyes, that does not mean that core@ approves the proposal at
all. core just got a copy because they need this information for the
decision.

I also can't find a sentence that this is the way core has approved.

So, for the future, to avoid further confusion, please start emails
that provide core@ decisions, with

"Core has decided"

or at least add

"with the core@ hat on"

in the signature.

> If you're getting hung up on the way it says "Here is a plan..." that's
> because Alan's message also said:
> 
> > However, the proponents
> > of particular DVCS systems have not presented a coherent plan that
> > can be used to implement a transition from the current system to a
> > new system.
> 
> That is, what was needed was a transition plan.   So that was what was
> provided.
> 
> That, and this, is about as official as you are likely to get.   While
> the (ambitious) timeline proposed there has slipped, all of this depends
> upon volunteers doing that work that is needed, there is more of that
> than you might think.   I do not have an updated timeline to present
> right now.

Ok, I'll accept your email stating this as official enough, since
other core@ members will be reading this and will tell us if that's
not correct. But I think this decision is important enough that it
should be sent to netbsd-announce in a clear separate mail that
describes this official decision.

Anyway, I have no problem with there being a hg 'master' behind the
git interface, as long as it works. I'll ask admins for help in
setting this up for pkgsrc.

Thank you for the explanation,
 Thomas