On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 03:47:26PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Roberto C. Sánchez <robe...@debian.org> writes: > > > I suppose requiring that they be pull-mirrored to Salsa might make > > sense, but requiring that the primary place of development for Debian > > packaging actually be in Salsa would present an obstacle for some of my > > current packages. Of course, that would mean that direct commits to the > > Salsa project in such an instance would be problematic. > > One of the great things about Git is that there's really no such thing as > a "primary place of development" since every clone of the repository is > equal and it's nearly trivial to push a repository to multiple remotes. I > suppose it could be a statement about process, but if we fleshed out the > idea some more, I suspect the most it would mean is that maintainers have > some responsibility to review PRs on Salsa (at least to the level that > they are responsible for looking at minor bug reports in the BTS), which > doesn't seem too unreasonable or onerous. > I agree with what you are saying here. However, I am concerned that the "push == automatic package upload" idea may be a step too far in some cases.
Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez
