On 2026-01-15 08:36:23 -0800, Otto Kekäläinen wrote: > Hi! > > > > 1. If the package has Vcs-* field as a sign that it is using VCS (93% > > > Salsa), but the uploaded packages has extra contents not pushed to > > > VCS, delay the migration by 10 days. The uploader can easily notice > > > they forgot to 'git push' and get the delay down by simply pushing > > > their commits. > > >... > > > > ~99% of my uploads are for packages where I am not a maintainer. > > The vast majority are NMUs for release critical bugs. > > > > How can I do "simply pushing" when I do not have write access to > > the repository? > > You can't but then again it is just a delay. The real maintainer can > pull in your change into git to accelerate the migration or if they do > nothing, there is simply a delay to wait for. > > ... > > For me it is a real problem with Salsa that most discussions seem to > > forget that many uploads are NMUs. > > My suggestions above are universal rules and just because NMU wasn't > explicitly mentioned does not mean it is "forgotten". > > > And I do not understand why you are you so insisting on getting testing > > migration delays as stick for Salsa. > > This is not about promoting Salsa. I am not suggesting that non-Salsa > packages get penalized. I am simply suggesting to the Release Team to > consider that vcswatch exists, it has relevant data about git status > and CI status that can be used to encourage people maintain them > properly and they don't regress (or stop using if they can't maintain > them). > > I would really like to see replies about thoughts on using vcswatch > data on delaying/accelerating or blocking migrations. So far only Paul > has replied.
britney is concerned about the archive and regressions compared to testing. vcswatch does not produce anything meaningful to detect regressions. Cheers -- Sebastian Ramacher
