Re: joining the PAPT
Louis-Philippe Véronneau:
> 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 :(
All's well that ends well. I've got access now and I'm happy to have
the package in PAPT. I put this package as Uploaders: since I'm also
upstream on fdroidserver, and we generally try to sync the release
process with Debian, so new upstream releases should be handled accordingly.
.hc
Reply to: