On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 05:16:39PM +0000, Colin Watson wrote: > On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 04:07:27PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 02:33:40PM +0000, Colin Watson wrote: > > > Yes. Merge is liable to be trickier since there are a couple of > > > different possible sets of semantics, but that's much more likely to be > > > an operation performed by the regular maintenance team than by a > > > drive-by uploader, so that doesn't worry me too much. > > > > Well, in a perfect wold, people would be able when they do a NMU e.g. > > to commit into a public branch with a known location, and the regular > > maintenance team will be the one that would merge it back into the > > packaging mainline. > > With the consent of the maintainer, the public branch with the known > location could be identical to the packaging mainline (à la > collab-maint). Well, I'm more fond of the git approach where branches are writeable only for me, and where I can see other's and pull from there at will (and they can as well of course). But YMMV. > But in any case, I was actually referring to merging new upstream > versions into Debian, not to merging work done by non-maintainers, > although I didn't express myself very clearly. Oh I see, but really, I think that both problems are basically the same, just not on the same scale :) -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder@debian.org OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgpCYeqytP97P.pgp
Description: PGP signature