[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: joining the PAPT



On 20-05-11 17 h 02, Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote:
> On 20-05-11 16 h 48, Utkarsh Gupta wrote:
>> Hi Hans,
>>
>> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 2:03 AM Hans-Christoph Steiner <hans@at.or.at> wrote:
>>> Ok, this has become a bit more urgent since someone has moved my package
>>> fdroidserver into PAPT without asking me.  Now I cannot push commits to
>>> it.  So either someone needs to grant me PAPT access or put my package
>>> back where it was in salsa.  I'm fine with fdroidserver being in PAPT,
>>> I'm not fine with being locked out of my package.
>>
>> I am sorry this happened (though I've no idea who did it).
>> Whilst I don't have the right permissions/access to add you to PAPT
>> officially, I have given you maintainer access to fdroidserver so this
>> won't be a blocker to you.
> 
> Hi,
> 
> That was I, and I documented the process in bug #946105 [1]. As stated
> on the BTS, the package was already in the PAPT but wasn't respecting
> the policy, thus making team work harder.
> 
> Looking at the package, it seems I forgot to push a patch to d/control
> to change the VCS. Sorry for overlooking that, I did a bunch in a row
> and must have skipped fdroidserver by mistake.
> 
> I'll do that in a few minutes.
> 
> Sorry if the changes to the repository path I made caused you problems.
> 
> [1]: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=946105
> 

Hmm, re-reading the BTS entry, it seems I went a little fast and didn't
take in account you put the PAPT in the "Uploaders" field instead of the
"Maintainer" one. I shouldn't have touched the package.

I guess that's why I didn't originally push a patch. Somehow
fdroidserver ended up in the list I gave to the Salsa team when I asked
them to migrate a bunch of repositories for us.

Again, sorry for the screw up :(

-- 
  ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
  ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  Louis-Philippe Véronneau
  ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋   pollo@debian.org / veronneau.org
  ⠈⠳⣄

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: