* Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070626 16:24]: > On 26/06/07 at 16:02 +0300, Baruch Even wrote: > > * Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070626 15:26]: > > > On 26/06/07 at 14:01 +0300, Baruch Even wrote: > > > > * Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070626 13:56]: > > > > > On 26/06/07 at 00:29 +0300, Baruch Even wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe I've answered your email but I just looked at the bts and > > > > > > I > > > > > > see no record for it so here goes another reply for the record. > > > > > > > > > > > > You asked if I wanted to adopt websec for which I am upstream > > > > > > maintainer. I will probably do that if no one else does, but I'd be > > > > > > happier if someone else does the Debian packaging as I have little > > > > > > time > > > > > > to work on websec and having someone else maintain the Debian > > > > > > packaging > > > > > > and forwarding just the upstream bugs would be better for me. > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me know if you are still interested in maintaining websec, if > > > > > > not > > > > > > I'll go for the default option and adopt it myself so it won't > > > > > > package-rot too much. > > > > > > > > > > Hi Baruch, > > > > > > > > > > My perl knowledge is very limited, so I don't feel confortable > > > > > maintaining it alone. However, if you want to share the load for the > > > > > packaging bugs, we could maintain it together on collab-maint. > > > > > > > > OK. Works for me. I'm not a perl guru myself but I can handle myself > > > > with enough manpage reading. > > > > > > > > I'd be happy to try git for for package maintenance but have no problem > > > > working with svn (or possibly another choice). Do you have any > > > > preference? > > > > > > Ah, I don't know git either, but trying it sounds good to me. > > > > Ok. We can always change to something else if we fail to work with git > > or it doesn't suite us. I won't be able to do anything at work right now > > so I'll look at creating the repo in the evening, unless you beat me to > > it. > > > > I believe that for a start we can have an upstream branch, a debian > > branch and an integration branch of the two which is used for merges > > from both of the branches. We should strive to have all patches to the > > code in either feature branches. > > I'm not sure, I haven't watched the "maintaining packages with git" talk > yet. Have you?
If you refer to the BoF of David Nusinow, than I've been in it but it had little information relevant to us. It discussed the case of X where upstream maintains the package in git as well. Though being upstream I can move to git as well :-) The above idea is taken from the BoF/talk by Manoj and Martin Krafft. Though I have to admit that the actual takl was rather fluffy IMO and didn't go too much into how things are maintained and showing how to handle different cases. Cheers, Baruch -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
