Hi! > >But the core of my question here was about the apparent conflict of > >signing up for LowThresholdNmu as an indication that you are open for > >collaboration, yet not having the package in VCS, which would make the > >collaboration easier. I am trying to understand why certain people > >object to using VCS while to most people I work with would not > >consider doing software development without a VCS at all. > > I have been on LowThresholdNmu for many years. I am very happy for people to > fix my packages. > > But I don't use Salsa, or a VCS, in my packaging workflow, so people ... > If someone does an NMU, I expect them to tell me (by email/bug report > containing the patch and any relevant discussion). I will then (try to > remember to) update my package from the archive before doing my next > release so I don't lose their changes in a future upload. That's > it. > > I'd prefer if they didn't stick it on Salsa because it's going to just > moulder and become out of date there (unless there are more NMUs than > maintainer updates). But I don't _really_ care - I probably won't even > notice (until the next person comes along and NMUs from an out-of-date > salsa repo - then I will get grumpy).
Thanks for the explanation Wookey on why you prefer to not use VCS for Debian packaging, and why others using VCS, and thus in Debian Salsa, creates extra work for you. It seems it is easier for you to check if a package has patches by searching your email and BTS than by going to a VCS and checking what the main branch or other branches (or MRs) have pending. I assume it is also easier for you to review and discuss those patches, and submit new versions of patches and download and test patches from email than it is by pulling and pushing git commits. Just out of curiosity, what email client and plugins do you use to achieve your optimal email-based workflow?
