On Mon, Dec 22, 2025 at 04:16:38PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > Hi, Hi Lucas,
> On 18/12/25 at 10:56 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > If you want to actually be able to use that for audit purposes, you > > might not want to work with the maintainer-specific mess that Salsa is. > > > > Only debian/ or complete sources? > > debian/patches/ or patches applied? > > One git repository per package, or 1k packages in one git repository? > > Isn't this mostly solved either by using git-buildpackage together with > debian/gbp.conf (to describe the workflow in use) or by team-specific > helpers (such as pkg-haskell-tools)? ~ 99% of my uploads are in packages where I am not a maintainer, and I am trying to stay away from touching git for that due to the diversity of ways how maintainers want an NMU integrated into git when there are janitor commits or a one year old aborted upgraded attempt or anything else I do not want to include in an NMU on the branch. Existing maintainer workflows for merging an NMU include: - asking to submit an MR - create a commit and merge into the branch - manually merge the changes on top of the branch - force-push the NMU, breaking history - manually revert other changes, and commit on top It is obvious that not in all cases a commit ever existed that matches the NMU upload, but people who want to use salsa git trees for audits might make such an incorrect assumption. > Lucas cu Adrian
