Re: Backport of python-lockfile and suggested team maintenance
My bafflement at the particulars of your complaint have not been
resolved, Andreas. I can only think you're confused about
‘python-lockfile’; much of your latest message just doesn't match the
facts.
Andreas Tille <tille@debian.org> writes:
> You decided to use github instead of git.debian.org.
Is your complaint that the Debian packaging for ‘python-lockfile’ is on
GitHub? This is the first time it's been raised in this thread.
If so, please look to the VCS-Git and VCS-Browser fields for the
package; that assertion isn't true.
> IMHO that is not following good practice for Debian team maintenance
As you have pointed out, the package is not currently team maintained,
so “good practice for Debian team maintenance” doesn't bear on the
issues you've expressed for this package.
This thread started with your polite request (thank you!) that the
package *should* become team maintained, and we don't even seem to have
got to addressing that yet :-)
> since [hosting at GitHub] makes contributions (admitedly slightly!)
> harder.
Agreed – I think the barriers are significant – which is one reason the
packaging is not hosted at GitHub.
> > As a maintainer of the package, I remain open to pull requests.
>
> The pull request would force me to create my own clone on Github
Since the Debian packaging work is not hosted at GitHub, no that would
not be necessary.
Even if it were hosted at GitHub, that assertion is not true: Git can
pull from *any* published repository.
I've already pointed out that two published repositories can share full
change information *without* being hosted at the same provider. Even one
hosted in a Debian developer's personal Alioth space works fine
<URL:https://wiki.debian.org/Alioth/Git#Personal_Git_repositories>.
So, I'm open to pull requests (whether created with ‘git request-pull’
or otherwise) from a published repository that I can point Git to.
Nothing about this requires anyone to host a repository at the same
provider.
> > Are you now expressing the separate position that you consider it
> > *not* sensible to name an individual as package maintainer? On what
> > basis?
I would still like an answer to this, because I must admit I am now
baffled as to what your complaint is and on what you base it.
Does it help address your complaint that I've hopefully cleared up some
incorrect assumptions? I hope so.
If you'd like to discuss on OFTC my nick is ‘bignose’.
--
\ “If I held you any closer I would be on the other side of you.” |
`\ —Groucho Marx |
_o__) |
Ben Finney
Reply to: