Jeremy Bícha <jeremy.bi...@canonical.com> wrote on 15/03/2025 at 22:23:54+0100:
> On Sat, Mar 15, 2025 at 4:34 PM Roberto C. Sánchez <robe...@debian.org> wrote: >> Question: Should uncoordinated NMUs unilaterally choose Salsa as the VCS >> for a package? > > Why are you opposed to using Salsa as the VCS for cpuset? You use > Salsa for many other packages and Github for some others. > > Although there are obviously some DDs who dislike Salsa, I think the > widespread project consensus is that Salsa should be used for packages > if they are not hosted in some other VCS. Our current DPL, Andreas, > ran on an explicit platform of encouraging Salsa and has continued to > push towards that through his entire DPL term. > > I consider the lack of using any VCS to be a bug, perhaps of normal > severity. And therefore, I do think it is appropriate to import a > package with its history into the Debian namespace on Salsa as part of > an NMU. The lack of a VCS makes it harder for people to contribute to > the package and makes it harder to see full packaging history. Feel free to import the package in your namespace on salsa, but changing a VCS field on a package is not something that should be done in an NMU. I'm also on lowthresholdnmu and I'd not be happy if someone were to mess with my workflow without asking. Communication still is key. Bests, -- PEB
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
