Samuel, are you updating SDL 1.2 package? -- Re: [Pkg-sdl-commits] r276 - unstable/libsdl1.2/debian

[Sam Hocevar]

On Sun, Dec 04, 2011, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:

> a) you're happy to continue with collaborative maintenance, in fact
> you already were;
> 
> b) you want to continue maintaining SDL packages, and that's why you
> just created 1.3;

   Yes. The problem with SDL 1.3 is that it doesn't have a stable API
yet, so I'm reluctant to have it in Debian when so little changes but so
much is potentially going to. Another problem is that all the library
packages depending on it (sdl-image, sdl-audio etc.) will need to be
duplicated, since they cannot be built with SDL 1.2 and SDL 1.3 at the
same time.

   But well, there's been enough demand for SDL 1.3 that it's worth
having at least in experimental. We can decide whether to move it to
unstable a bit later.

> c) you're happy to go with whatever VCS the team decides to use
> 
> So it's just a matter to decide with VCS to use, basically.  Regarding
> this, I think that the main priority is to have only one, rather than
> two, VCSs.  Or at least that each source package is only maintained in
> one repository.
> 
> My vote goes for git, since it's more speedy for long-distance and
> enables off-line work.  But I'm not totally against SVN or others if
> there's enough consensus (either now or in the future).

   I am fine with Git, I use it for almost all my projects. I like
the svn-buildpackage workflow a lot more than the git-buildpackage
one, though. But if I'm the only one to think so, let's just switch
everything to Git!

-- 
Sam.