Bug#422296: Adopting websec
* Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net> [070626 16:24]:
> On 26/06/07 at 16:02 +0300, Baruch Even wrote:
> > * Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net> [070626 15:26]:
> > > On 26/06/07 at 14:01 +0300, Baruch Even wrote:
> > > > * Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net> [070626 13:56]:
> > > > > On 26/06/07 at 00:29 +0300, Baruch Even wrote:
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I believe I've answered your email but I just looked at the bts and I
> > > > > > see no record for it so here goes another reply for the record.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You asked if I wanted to adopt websec for which I am upstream
> > > > > > maintainer. I will probably do that if no one else does, but I'd be
> > > > > > happier if someone else does the Debian packaging as I have little time
> > > > > > to work on websec and having someone else maintain the Debian packaging
> > > > > > and forwarding just the upstream bugs would be better for me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Let me know if you are still interested in maintaining websec, if not
> > > > > > I'll go for the default option and adopt it myself so it won't
> > > > > > package-rot too much.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Baruch,
> > > > >
> > > > > My perl knowledge is very limited, so I don't feel confortable
> > > > > maintaining it alone. However, if you want to share the load for the
> > > > > packaging bugs, we could maintain it together on collab-maint.
> > > >
> > > > OK. Works for me. I'm not a perl guru myself but I can handle myself
> > > > with enough manpage reading.
> > > >
> > > > I'd be happy to try git for for package maintenance but have no problem
> > > > working with svn (or possibly another choice). Do you have any
> > > > preference?
> > >
> > > Ah, I don't know git either, but trying it sounds good to me.
> >
> > Ok. We can always change to something else if we fail to work with git
> > or it doesn't suite us. I won't be able to do anything at work right now
> > so I'll look at creating the repo in the evening, unless you beat me to
> > it.
> >
> > I believe that for a start we can have an upstream branch, a debian
> > branch and an integration branch of the two which is used for merges
> > from both of the branches. We should strive to have all patches to the
> > code in either feature branches.
>
> I'm not sure, I haven't watched the "maintaining packages with git" talk
> yet. Have you?
If you refer to the BoF of David Nusinow, than I've been in it but it
had little information relevant to us. It discussed the case of X where
upstream maintains the package in git as well. Though being upstream I
can move to git as well :-)
The above idea is taken from the BoF/talk by Manoj and Martin Krafft.
Though I have to admit that the actual takl was rather fluffy IMO and
didn't go too much into how things are maintained and showing how to
handle different cases.
Cheers,
Baruch
Reply to: