Sysop: | Amessyroom |
---|---|
Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
Users: | 26 |
Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
Uptime: | 61:28:36 |
Calls: | 481 |
Files: | 1,072 |
Messages: | 96,151 |
Hi,
Question: Should uncoordinated NMUs unilaterally choose Salsa as the VCS
for a package?
Why are you opposed to using Salsa as the VCS for cpuset? You use
Salsa for many other packages and Github for some others.
I am not opposed to using Salsa. As you note, I already use it for other packages.
The nature of my question (which I took considerable time articulating
in order ensure that it was clear, but which apparently was not) has to
do with the appropriateness of *unilaterally* declaring Salsa as the VCS
in an *NMU*.
Just curious to understand what is the reason you have signed up for https://wiki.debian.org/LowThresholdNmu ?
If you want more people to collaborate on maintaining your packages,
should you also move them to version control and preferably also host
at https://salsa.debian.org/debian/ in a namespace that is most
accessible for collaboration?
Or should we add an extra column to
https://wiki.debian.org/LowThresholdNmu where people can mark that
they want co-maintainers or NMUs but specifically want the
collaboration to be done without using version control?