Quoting Otto Kekäläinen (2025-03-23 23:54:59) > > 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].
[details snipped not disputing that NMUs occured instead of salvaging] I find it quite relevant to raise concerns when the distinction between NMU and slavaging gets blurred. We have a documented process for doing non-maintainer uploads to a package, which includes narrowly targeted changes not fundamentally changing the way the package is maintained - even if the maintainer is totally unresponsive. We have a documented process for salvaging a package, which includes the major action of taking over as maintainer even if the current maintainer is unresponsive. In our defined processes for NMUs and salvaging, we make sure to not tell the maintainer how to do their work: An NMU should be narrow in scope, and if it turns out to "blow up" then it is the responsibility of the NMUer to fix collateral work. Salvaging puts the burden fully in the hands of the person taking over the maintenance, who can then restructure as they pleases, *after* the salvaging process has completed. I consider it an abuse of the NMU process to restructure maintenance workflow of the package - e.g. by declaring or changing a certain use of VCS for it. I find such abuse problematic, because it puts a burden on the maintainer for how they ought to do their work from then on. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
