• Re: Should uncoordinated NMUs unilaterally choose Salsa as the VCS for

    From Roberto =?iso-8859-1?Q?C=2E_S=E1nch@21:1/5 to All on Tue May 27 19:20:01 2025
    On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 09:33:00AM -0700, Otto KekΣlΣinen wrote:
    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 ?

    Because I don't want my occasional inability to respond to something
    like a bug report to be the cause of a presistent/unresolved issue
    affecting users.

    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?

    I can appreciate that and in principle I agree that Salsa is a good
    place for that sort of thing.

    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?

    It doesn't seem like the sort of thing that would be necessary in
    practice.

    Here is what devref 5.11.1 says:

    When doing an NMU, you must first make sure that your intention to NMU
    is clear. Then, you must send a patch with the differences between the
    current package and your proposed NMU to the BTS. The "nmudiff" script
    in the "devscripts" package might be helpful.


    It stands to reason that if a package is maintained in Salsa, and there
    is recent activity, then that is probably a good way to interact with
    the maintainer. But absent that (either because the project in Salsa
    doesn't permit all DDs push access or because it's simply not in Salsa),
    the guidance from devref seems to cover the situation rather well.

    Regards,

    -Roberto

    --
    Roberto C. Sßnchez

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)