Hello Helmut, On Mon 28 Oct 2019 at 09:35PM +01, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 10:11:22AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: >> On Sat 26 Oct 2019 at 04:24PM -07, Russ Allbery wrote: >> > Hm, that's an interesting thought. I do generally include that sort of >> > information in the docuemntation of all packages for which I'm upstream, >> > but for Debian I've assumed the preferred way to propose changes is the >> > BTS. Now that's potentially changing with Salsa. I don't really mind >> > monitoring multiple input formats, but some people will. >> >> I think that README.source is a fine place for this sort of information. > > Hell, no! > > Having to read some arbitrary README.source slows down patch submission > excessively. You may consider this cost low, but if you try to file > thousands of patches across the whole archive, this adds up. Documenting > the preferred way of change submission in a machine-readable format > absolutely is a requirement for performing archive-wide changes. Our > present implementation of this requirement is "maintainers must consume > bugs filed via the BTS". I think this is less than ideal, but works > reasonably well from a submitter-pov. Changing this to "look up in > README.source" would make me stop contributing to Debian. Sorry, I didn't phrase my suggestion carefully. I was assuming that we will continue to expect maintainers to accept patches in the BTS, but that if they *prefer* something else, they could document that in README.source. Someone making a large number of changes could just choose to submit them all as patches to the BTS, due to the high cost of checking README.source -- I'm sure maintainers would understand this. -- Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
