On Tue, 06 Nov 2018 10:17:01 -0500, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 03:00:03PM +0000, Matthew Vernon wrote: >> >> Relatedly, what's the etiquette about commits to master? I recently >> discovered that someone else had pushed a commit to the tip of master >> of one of the packages I maintain (and not notified me); when I >> complained I was told that emailing would be too much effort. Am I >> wrong to feel that at least a MR is something I should have expected as >> a package maintainer, not just commits to master? >> >> [I don't really mean to have a go at the person concerned; I'd just >> like to know what to expect in future...] >> > That seems completely reasonable. Making the repository accessible to > others is a courtesy that should not be abused. Pushing directly to the > master branch of a package for which one is not an active maintainer or > contributor is at a minimum impolite.
I disagree when it comes to the debian namespace, and the documentation agrees with me[1]. I agree that one should exercise judgement: I wouldn't commit an intrusive patch without discussing first. But there are many changes that do not need discussion. But for example, about a month ago Ondřej Nový changed the Format: url of d/copyright to use https on one of my packages (and I assume a lot more), and didn't notify me. I don't think it is reasonable to ask for coordination for this type of changes, and I would agree that even notifying is too much effort if this was done salsa-wide. Some fixes are better just done than talked about :). BTW, thanks Ondřej Nový for those "editorial" fixes! Additionally, if one is doing an NMU, I think that should be pushed to salsa if the permissions allow it. [1] https://wiki.debian.org/Salsa/Doc#Collaborative_Maintenance:_. 22Debian.22_group -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler