Tobias, et. al: On 7/13/19 2:17 PM, Thomas Ward wrote: > On 7/13/19 1:26 PM, Tobias Frost wrote: >> Ok, seems indeed a bumpy ride, glad that you were able to fix it. >> Said that, I can also create a repository for you e.g in the Debian >> namspace, (I see it is in your own namespace, this is OK but a Team's or >> the Debian namespace would be better). Let me know and I'll set you up. > > Would be glad if you can, then I can do a merge request directly > against that. And it'd make my life a little easier heh > After my message was sent, I was informed by Salsa afterwards at 4:18PM my time (Eastern US, currently UTC-4) that the repository was made in Debian's namespace for Debian/xca, and my access was provided to the repository as Maintainer. Thank you to the Debian teams in question for this, as well as for providing me that access. It definitely will assist in moving this forward, as well as making Vcs-Git maintenance of this much easier.
Using the provided gbp command from Tobias in the prior emails (thanks for the command, I"m still getting the full hang of gbp, so every bit of helpful information you can provide is appreciated), and that provided access on Salsa, I have populated the repository with the data from the dscs, which includes the pristine-tar and the upstream branches. This data, based from what I can tell on 2.0.1 in Unstable, as well as all the tags, has been uploaded to the repository to get us a 'baseline' from what's in Debian. I have not made any efforts as of yet to apply updated packaging changes, nor to address the bugs that I've identified in Unstable need changes (including the version bumps). Note that these changes and this repository, as well as my use of the gbp workflow thus far, I am going to be basing the remainder of my ITS and the packaging I will be uploading to Mentors for sponsoring to here. At that time, the ITS will be 'waiting' for further movement. Only two remaining questions for this before I move forward with updating the Salsa repository with further changes (or the preferred way I would be doing to get a second set of eyes on the changes, a pull request from my own namespace in for all three branches). As I am currently not the specified maintainer for this package, and given that I have filed this ITS: (1) should I write the changelog entries from the perspective of an NMU or as if I am the maintainer/co-maintainer of the repository? (2) Should the Uploaders field be updated in the process as well to include myself as well, or should I let that be handled at a later point in time by the MIA team or by another DD? Thomas
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
