Nicholas D Steeves <s...@debian.org> writes: > Manphiz <manp...@gmail.com> writes: > >>>> I have been trying to fix uscan error of Emacs addon packages. When >>>> working on volume-el, I found that the repo on salsa didn't accept merge >>>> requests while most other packages did. If it can open up merge request >>>> access it would be great and I have some pending d/watch fixes. Thanks >>>> in advance! >>> >>> This may indicate that the Uploader wants patches rather than MRs, and >>> at the very least may indicate the Uploader doesn't want to monitor >>> Salsa for MRs. >>> >> >> Thanks for the explanation, Nicolas! Totally make sense. > > You're welcome! > >> Done. A little bit of explanation for the changes: >> >> * Upstream never had any tags, so uscan will always fail, so disable >> d/watch for now. This will result in an empty uscan results. > > Why is breaking notification of any future upstream tags better than > using uscan's git mode? Uscan's git mode will notify when upstream > pushes any commit, with or without a tag. Help is available in > #debian-mentors if writing an output format line that is suitable for > volume-el's existing version scheme is too challenging. >
Hi Nicolas, Before implementing tracking all upstream commits, I wonder whether this is a good idea. AIUI we use uscan to track upstream tags for releases instead of tracking development activity. If upstream doesn't provide releases or tags, I think it's up to the maintainer whether to use a new upstream head as a new release. However if we use uscan to track that I wonder whether it may cause extra noise like in udd.debian.org or tracker.debian.org as it may notify all upstream activities. What do you think? > Regards, > Nicholas -- Manphiz
