Cayetano Santos via Guix-patches via <guix-patc...@gnu.org> writes: > I’m just curious about whether guix has a policy concerning this kind of > situation, before reviewing your patch (#74231), as there might have > consequences in the most general case. Namely, it is the case of > patching a package definition, redirecting its source url to a fork by > the patch’s author. > > Is that acceptable or a risk ? Is it up to the committer to evaluate, > once being warned ? Something more explicit ?
Changing origins is inevitable sometimes. I don’t think there’s a formal process; it’s more of a matter of judgment on a case-by-case basis. The [general guidelines on consensus-based decision making] certainly apply. In this case, it seems the original maintainer has been absent for several years, there are active requests for a fork (see [any takers for a fork? — sourcehut lists]), and Suhail has made [substantial tidying] over several weeks. Given these circumstances, and Suhail’s [established presence] as a contributor, the fact that he is both the author of the patch and the fork is not concerning to me. So +1 from me (as a user of the Guix package) for what it’s worth. —Liam [general guidelines on consensus-based decision making] <https://guix.gnu.org/manual/devel/en/html_node/Making-Decisions.html> [any takers for a fork? — sourcehut lists] <https://lists.sr.ht/~yoctocell/git-email-devel/%3ccc4a1b8b-9a1d-46cf-9b04-466c85ebc...@riseup.net%3E> [substantial tidying] <https://codeberg.org/suhail/git-email/compare/c0211fa61289fe799cb9c83a8478736fd977793f...0.5.0> [established presence] <https://yhetil.org/guix/?q=f%3Asuhail>
