Hello Guix, Below is a summary of the situation that we're seeking guidance on. Please ignore this message, if already aware of context.
Suhail Singh <suhailsingh...@gmail.com> writes: >> I’d say, better bring the question to guix-devel, as this has large >> implications. There must be a policy already around this point. > > I'm CC-ing guix-devel. > > [1]: > <https://lists.sr.ht/~yoctocell/git-email-devel/%3c87wn1zlhfq....@posteo.de%3E> > > [2]: > <https://lists.sr.ht/~yoctocell/git-email-devel/%3ccc4a1b8b-9a1d-46cf-9b04-466c85ebc...@riseup.net%3E> In issue #74231 I submitted a patch to update emacs-git-email. The patch changes the notion of "upstream" for the emacs-git-email package. The current package definition in Guix points to the original implementation. However, for the last couple of years that project has received no updates. Importantly, there has been no response from the original author regarding offers to take over or help with maintainership during the same period (see [1] and [2] above). All this while the original package had some critical bugs (including, but not limited to, missing parentheses). I have, since recently, started actively using (and developing) the package and incorporated all existing patches as well as added some additional functionality. In situations such as these: 1. Is it okay to update the package to point to an actively maintained fork? 2. Are there some necessary pre-requisites that have to be fulfilled before 1 can be done? If so, have they been fulfilled? If not, could the outstanding items be noted? Regards, -- Suhail
