Oopsie in sysvinit-2.92

[KatolaZ]

On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 12:55:57AM +0000, Dmitry Bogatov wrote:
> 
> [2018-11-24 09:31] KatolaZ <katolaz at freaknet.org>
> > > Dmitry, Benda, Ian: you find the relevant commit in sysvinit/master
> > > for review.
> 
> Please, when you are requesting review, do not push to master. Remember,
> you can not amend `master' branch once you pushed to it, no matter what!
>

Hi Dmitry,

I am sorry for that but I am the only one who has been using wip
branches so far, while have seen that you just push to master "no
matter what". It does not look like reverting commits is master has
been forbidden. I am sorry if my work caused any problem.

> I have following concerns about those three commits on `master' branch:
> 
>  * New upstream release should be incorporate as merge with `upstream-release'
>    branch. Use `gbp import-orig --uscan'.

There is not just one way of doing that, AFAICT. We could decide to
agree on one particular way or another, and I might be happy
considering to adhere with that. But please, just be clear about what
and why.

> 
>  * Your commit messages and changelog entries could be improved. The
>    `gitlint' tool may provide some suggestions.
>

I don't know whether gitlint is the preferred, suggested, or mandated
way of checking commit messages for Debian packages. If it is, I have
probably missed it by reading the variety of documentation available
on the git workflow in Debian, and I am sorry for that.

If it is not, I would appreciate concrete comments instead. Anything
can be improved in many different ways, and if you are not told what
is wrong, any "improvement" might just be bad without you realising
it.

>  * You do not add [ J. Random hacker ] into changelog as long you are
>    the only person making changes.
>

Sorry for that. I thought that would have spared time and effort to
the other who would have added to the changelog later. This is what
has happened so far, so the mistake is due to the effort of being kind
to other fellow maintainers.

> Given that 2.93 is already released, I believe the best course of action
> for us would be to revert your commits and package and upload 2.93
> instead. I did it and pushed into `wip/master'. If there is no
> objections, I will push it into `master' and upload to sid.
> 
> Please, do not touch `master' for now.

I don't understand why you decided to revert the commits (could you
please explain what was wrong with them, exactly? It was basically the
same version of upstream, plus one patch which could have been
removed...), but I am fine with that.

I think it would be good if we could please be clear about maintenance
workflow. I am used to maintain packages with a group of people, and
normally there is not only one master of the rings, as long as stuff
is kept tidy and in order.

HND

KatolaZ

-- 
[ ~.,_  Enzo Nicosia aka KatolaZ - Devuan -- Freaknet Medialab  ]  
[     "+.  katolaz [at] freaknet.org --- katolaz [at] yahoo.it  ]
[       @)   http://kalos.mine.nu ---  Devuan GNU + Linux User  ]
[     @@)  http://maths.qmul.ac.uk/~vnicosia --  GPG: 0B5F062F  ] 
[ (@@@)  Twitter: @KatolaZ - skype: katolaz -- github: KatolaZ  ]
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/debian-init-diversity/attachments/20181125/432bf536/attachment.sig>