Question: Should uncoordinated NMUs unilaterally choose Salsa as the VCS
for a package?
I ask because one of my packages was NMUed earlier today. I have listed
myself in the LowThresholdNmu wiki page (that is, any packages for which
I am the sole maintainer). However, I did not think that placing myself
on that list meant anything other than "if you want to NMU one of my
packages, you can do so without coordination or delay, but still
otherwise observing the accepted practices for NMUS".
In this particular instance, the NMUer decided that in addition to
fixing an RC bug and another normal bug that I had not gotten around to
(which I genuinely appreciate), the NMUer also decided to do a bunch of
housekeeping, including a bunch of hygiene of files under debian/ and
also created a repo for the package in Salsa and unilaterally declared
the VCS of the package to be the new Salsa repo by populating d/control
(where the package did not have a VCS previously declared).
This appears, at least to me, to have rather substantially exceeded what
is appropriate for an uncoordinated NMU. In particular, this seems to be
inconsistent with the following paragraph from the Developer's
Reference, section 5.11.1:
* Does your NMU really fix bugs? ("Bugs" means any kind of bugs, e.g.
wishlist bugs for packaging a new upstream version, but care should
be taken to minimize the impact to the maintainer.) Fixing cosmetic
issues or changing the packaging style in NMUs is discouraged.
I had thought of possibly suggesting an update to the documentation, but
I'm not sure that adding more words would make the matter any more
clear.
How do others suggest to handle this particular situation?
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sánchez
