On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 07:05:49PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote: > > any objections to me enabling them? :) > Yes and no. :)
:)
> As in; I have nothing against moving to salsa (!) if we go that route,
> we should just first firmly decide whether the BTS or salsa is the
> canonical source of truth.
I dont think there is a canonical source of truth ;)
Rather (if we go this route), salsa will be the upstream bug tracker and
the BTS will be for Debian issues. And like with all other packages in
Debian, sometimes users will report upstream issues in the BTS and we as
maintainers should (or could/can) forward them to the upstream tracker,
which will be on salsa.
(And of course we should then encourage everyone to file upstream issues
on salsa.)
> (eg. one must surely be a strict subset of the other, rather than
> having two distinct/overlapping sets of issues, where things get
> lost in the cracks etc.)
sure.
> As I hinted at last time as someone who is taking on the majority of
> the heavy-lifting of diffoscope development these days, I humbly feel
> like I should at least have some input on the processes and procedures
> that I use day-to-day. :)
I hope the above addresses your concerns. Does it?
--
cheers,
Holger
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Reproducible-builds mailing list Reproducible-builds@alioth-lists.debian.net https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds
