Re: [RFC] Proposal for new source format
"Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu> writes:
> I do think, though that we should allow the specification of *multiple*
> git repositories, with some kind of type specifier so it can be clear
> whether a particular repository is just a read-only clone versus a
> read/write "master" repository, and whether a repository+branch is the
> upstream repository, and/or used by the debian maintainer's to maintain
> its packaging.
Oh, sure, absolutely. Like you, I maintain all of my packages in multiple
Git repositories (once I add Salsa, there will generally be four of them)
for each package.
> It probably would also be useful if the metadata had some standardized
> way to indicate the preferred way to propose changes to either upstream
> or the debian packaging maintainer --- whether it's e-mail to a
> particular e-mail address, or a pull request, etc.
Hm, that's an interesting thought. I do generally include that sort of
information in the docuemntation of all packages for which I'm upstream,
but for Debian I've assumed the preferred way to propose changes is the
BTS. Now that's potentially changing with Salsa. I don't really mind
monitoring multiple input formats, but some people will.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: