Le Sun, Aug 17, 2025 at 08:57:46AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o a écrit : > What I would suggest instead is that we allow packages to document > what their advised contribution policy should be. (…) I plan on doing that for all my packages, using debian/README.source until some consensus emerges about a better place to document that. Web views of my packaging repositories are then going to be updated to show debian/README.source by default, instead of the much less useful upstream README file. I understand that this is not (yet?) a documented use of debian/README.source, and I would be OK to change to something else once some consensus is reached. But I am not going to wait for such a consensus to start documenting preferred contribution methods, so this imperfect solution is what I am going with for now. > Suggestions that people simply disable Salsa MR's is a form of > documentation. It's a bit of a blunt way of doing things and doesn't > encourage other variants (e.g., submit a MR and then also file a bug > in the BTS), but at least it is documenting that submitting a MR isn't > the way to go, at least for a particular package. I did that, but this is only a temporary measure until I write actual documentation. Once it’s done and it’s clearer how MR can be used in relation with the packages I maintain, I’m going to re-enable them.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature