Re: Please enable Debian Science team easier access to your Python packages with scientific scope
On January 20, 2017 4:39:30 AM EST, Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> wrote:
>Hi Neurodebian team,
>
>recently I stumbled about several reverse dependencies which are
>affecting packages of Debian Med that are Python packages with
>scientific background, maintained by NeuroDebian team but on Github. I
>think I explained the drawbacks of this in the past and do not like to
>repeat myself. The recent example is seaborn (bugs #849368, #850999).
>
>I'd like to ask you for permission to move any such package with RC
>bugs over to Debian Science Git to bring it to a wider audience and
>enable some effective cooperation between all involved people.
>
>I learned that Yaroslav prefers a different Git repository layout than
>it is specified in Debian Science policy. While I personally do not
>see
>the advantage as a compromise I could leave the non-default layout even
>if I'd prefer that we work on the policy if there are any known
>drawbacks of the specification we once agreed upon.
>
>In this sense is it OK if I move seaborn from Github to git.debian.org
>leaving whatever Git repository layout is used and let Debian Science
>team keep on the maintenance?
>
>Kind regards
>
> Andreas.
Re repositories - I welcome nmus, patches and PRs on github. So far in an example move of a package (pandas iirc) under another team didn't magically resolved outstanding issues.
Fwiw - Yes, you have my blessing to move seaborn. Thank you
--
Sent from a phone which beats iPhone.
Reply to: