Hi. I'm going to (partially) reply to myself... On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 11:57:34PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> * The fact that several consecutive Debian releases are folded into the > same git commit. Most probably this is a consequence of snapshot.debian.org not containing every release ever made in the past. I guess snapshot.debian.org was bootstrapped with packages from the stable releases so far (i.e. skipping intermediate versions). I keep old releases and could probably construct a history line more accurate than the one reflected in the salsa repo you created. However, becoming an historian of my own packages is not right now a priority for me. I wonder what are the common practices regarding this. I see that some people put packages in salsa without any history at all (debian-med comes to mind). But I also suppose that having the full history is nicer and desirable in a general sense (don't know how many people do it that way). Is this up to the maintainer? I believe your main goal is to have the package in salsa "in whatever form", and having the full history is a secondary goal which is just a nice thing or a bonus but not the main intent. Is this ok? So, I can think of several criteria to trim history a little bit and simplify our work. For example: * Starting the history at the first release for which I was the maintainer. * Starting the history at the first GPLed release (not every release was DFSG-free, and we were not strict at the time with that, I guess the package was on the verge of being moved to non-free, this is true for procmail, but I'm not completely sure about smartlist. * Starting the history only at the current oldoldstable, or whatever release is supported by the LTS team. Again, I'd like to know what are the current practices regarding this. > * The fact that the master branch seems to be a mix of unstable + any > other security upload which happened in the past. [...] I took at quick look at DEP-14 and this is already recommended by DEP-14. Thanks.
