Re: Direct commits to packages' VCS (Was: DEP1: Non Maintainer Uploads)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 11:09:09AM -0300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>On 12/08/08 at 08:20 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 02:14:06AM -0300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>> >After that, we can have a discussion about:
>> >- Should people be encouraged to commit the changes they make in an NMU
>> > to the package's Vcs?
>> >- Should people be encouraged to commit any change (not necessarily
>> > resulting in an upload) to the package's Vcs?
>> How about just sneak in a recommendation to check debian/README.Source
>> for any hints about specific packaging routines to be aware of?
>> Then each team can choose to mention there if NMU and/or any non-team
>> commits to their VCS is encouraged/discouraged, without the need for
>> concensus about it.
>I agree that it's a good idea to document this on a per-package basis,
>However, I don't think that it's the main purpose of
>debian/README.source (which is to document how to get the source of the
>package ready for editing). Whether to encourage direct commits is
>orthogonal to this, so maybe it should be documented elsewhere, to make
>it easier for big teams to deploy this "policy" in all their packages.
>(think of the perl team!)
Large teams like the Perl or GNOME teams would benefit from refering to
some separate document anyway - wether or not that documentation include
how to interact with some VCS.
so I fail to see your point here.
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----