Re: Should uncoordinated NMUs unilaterally choose Salsa as the VCS for a package?

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Should uncoordinated NMUs unilaterally choose Salsa as the VCS for a package?
From: Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT>
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2025 22:51:34 +0100
Message-id: <[🔎] Z9X2ZqxixVGPeG-M@bongo.bofh.it>
Mail-followup-to: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
In-reply-to: <[🔎] Z9XkQexSHS8a0cXY@localhost>
References: <[🔎] Z9XkQexSHS8a0cXY@localhost>

On Mar 15, "Roberto C. Sánchez" <roberto@debian.org> wrote:

This appears, at least to me, to have rather substantially exceeded what
is appropriate for an uncoordinated NMU.

Indeed.

--
ciao,
Marco

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to:

References:
- Should uncoordinated NMUs unilaterally choose Salsa as the VCS for a package?
  - From: Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org>

Prev by Date: Re: Should uncoordinated NMUs unilaterally choose Salsa as the VCS for a package?
Next by Date: Re: Should GPU shaders be considered firmware?
Previous by thread: Re: Should uncoordinated NMUs unilaterally choose Salsa as the VCS for a package?
Next by thread: Re: Should uncoordinated NMUs unilaterally choose Salsa as the VCS for a package?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread