>jeu. 07 nov. 2024 at 10:48, Suhail Singh <suhailsingh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Cayetano Santos <csant...@inventati.org> writes: > >>>> To note that this is a completely different beast compared to previous >>>> package (repo, version and mantainer). >>> >>> Yes. Please let me know in case the commit message needs to be revised >>> (it already does note that we are changing the referenced fork). The >>> previous fork hasn't been updated in a couple of years and had a number >>> of bugs that have since been resolved in the updated fork. >> >> To me, the open question goes well beyond this package. >> >> Does guix package forks of code from a couple of years ago, without an >> explicit acknowledgement between maintainers ? > > The maintainer has not been active on their own mailing list > (<https://lists.sr.ht/~yoctocell/git-email-devel>) for a while despite > repeated discussions about outstanding issues ([1], [2]). I believe it > would be fair to characterize the original package as having been > abandoned. > > I'm CC-ing Xinglu Chen (the original author) to this email for > transparency. > >> Additionally, this is a second generation fork ... > > I am not sure I understand what you mean by "second generation" in this > regard. Could you please elaborate? > > If you're referring to the fact that it used another contributor's > (Mekeor) fork as a starting point, then for context please note that the > decision to treat my fork as "upstream" was in discussion with them > (since Mekeor's no longer actively using the package). > > I'm CC-ing Mekeor to this message for transparency. Yes, this is what I refer to. >> I’d say, better bring the question to guix-devel, as this has large >> implications. There must be a policy already around this point. > > I'm CC-ing guix-devel. Thanks ! I’m just curious about whether guix has a policy concerning this kind of situation, before reviewing your patch (#74231), as there might have consequences in the most general case. Namely, it is the case of patching a package definition, redirecting its source url to a fork by the patch’s author. Is that acceptable or a risk ? Is it up to the committer to evaluate, once being warned ? Something more explicit ? C.
