Samuel, are you updating SDL 1.2 package? -- Re: [Pkg-sdl-commits] r276 - unstable/libsdl1.2/debian
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montezelo at gmail.com
Sun Dec 4 15:30:54 UTC 2011
2011/12/4 Sam Hocevar <sam at hocevar.net>:
>> Hopefully Samuel didn't start to make other changes to the package
>> yet, or they are not incompatible :)
> My only changes to libsdl1.2 were merging changes from the previous
> uploads. Note that the last two uploads were done by Josselin who is a
> member of the team. He probably flagged them as NMUs in order to not
> show too much commitment.
OK, so the 1.2 version is not going to have conflicts, since Felix for
sure incorporated the work so far :-)
Regarding Josselin, as far as I know, he dropped (active) maintenance
of SDL packages in a post to the mailing lists in 2006 or so in an
angry post about dunc-tank-related matters, and didn't make "official"
revisions of SDL package except for NMUs. So yes, I guess that he did
NMUs for the reason that you mention.
And since we weren't seeing much commitment (stepping in as
maintainers) from anybody, that's why we were taking over.
> I uploaded libsdl-1.3 packages to experimental. It's still managed in
> SVN but if someone moves it to Git I'll adapt.
OK, so just to make things clear, I take it that:
a) you're happy to continue with collaborative maintenance, in fact
you already were;
b) you want to continue maintaining SDL packages, and that's why you
just created 1.3;
c) you're happy to go with whatever VCS the team decides to use
So it's just a matter to decide with VCS to use, basically. Regarding
this, I think that the main priority is to have only one, rather than
two, VCSs. Or at least that each source package is only maintained in
My vote goes for git, since it's more speedy for long-distance and
enables off-line work. But I'm not totally against SVN or others if
there's enough consensus (either now or in the future).
More information about the Pkg-sdl-maintainers