Hi, > Unfortunatly1 I have to ask this question, as this is not how you and > (your|the) salvaging team is operating at the moment - IMHO. > > I acknowledge, while -- after being scoulted -- the approach how to > handle ITS' by the team has changed, it continues to move or create > repos of projects it "handles" to git repos and now doing NMUs instead. > That often happens without any "coordination", for example, I've just > got a message that ddate has been moved to the debian group on salsa, > and the changelog mentions an NMU. (However, another NMU was faster and > now the repo at salsa.d.o does not reflect the package state.) > There is *no* bug report against ddate announcing any NMU, and no > nmudiff.
This includes a bunch of accusations, so let's first check if they are actually true. I haven't reviewed a large number of packages that have been salvaged recently, but I did check the context for ddate[1], pccts[2] and nstreams[3]. In the case of ddate there was a bug, and two people updated that package on a place that was not the original version control of that package, and neither announced their intent in the BTS either, so they ended up doing duplicate work. It didn't have neither an TS nor NMU email/bug report. I don't think it is fair to accuse Andreas of what two other people did on their own, without following any process. Only pccts and nstreams showcase what Andreas is doing, and in them he filed Bug#1100859 and Bug#1089721, announcing his intent in advance, which seems to me as a very thorough description and solid communication. For nstreams the maintainer didn't reply anything, so Andreas proceeded to move the package to the shared namespace on Debian, where multiple people was able to collaborate on what changes to commit before upload, and seems he then uploaded it in the DELAYED queue for one last chance for the original maintainer to react. What happened for ddate is unfortunate, and could maybe have been prevented if either person working of the package had announced something in the BTS, but I don't think it is an example of the work of salvaging packages is currently systematically wrong or uncoordinated or not discussed. Your reference to being scoulted indicates that there was probably something more to this, and what you actually experienced being wrong or unfair was perhaps left out from the email. Thus I can't comment the bigger picture, but I would ask to refrain from throwing out accusations on one person for trying to create a process if the accusations are based on two other people doing something that wasn't that process. [1] https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/ddate [2] https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/pccts [3] https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/nstreams
