On Sat, May 11, 2024 at 06:37:53PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote: > Nilesh Patra <nilesh@debian.org> writes: > > > On Sat, May 11, 2024 at 12:47:14PM +0000, Martin Dosch wrote: > >> Dear Simon, > >> > >> On 10.05.2024 19:20, Simon Josefsson wrote: > >> > I reviewed the debian/sid changes and they look fine. Could you push > >> > the upstream & pristine-tar branches and the upstream/1.1.0 tag? I > >> > wasn't able to build it. > >> > >> thank you for reviewing. I pushed upstream/1.1.0 now. Maybe it was one of > >> the issues pushing to salsa I often experience recently. I also pushed the > >> tarball to pristine-tar and hope I did it right as I usually don't work with > >> pristine-tar but gbp. > > > > Using pristine-tar is against go team packaging workflow. Please don't. > > > > https://go-team.pages.debian.net/workflow-changes.html#wf-2017-11-pristine-tar > > While I agree it may be good to migrate away from pristine-tar, is > removing the branch really necessary? Isn't it possible to just avoid > using it? Why do you want to have technical debt and make things un-necessary complicated and confusing for the next person working on the package? > So that old tags still build... One could get the tarballs from PTS or run gbp export-orig. In any case, this package was last uploaded 2 years ago that too via a NMU. The probability that anyone will want to "build" a previous tag on a low popcon package with just 2 reverse depends is... low. I will not argue further about it and refuse to participate in further bike-shedding. Best, Nilesh
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature