[05:17] <david_david> Hi, I created a new account but I can't connect to https://launchpad.net/ , I get this following error:
[05:17] <david_david> (Error ID: OOPS-e94c93b3597d3d177d7ab5240dd28c50)
[10:22] <cjwatson> I've fixed david_david's account, above, though they're not here.  I guess it'll be a nice surprise for them.
[17:17] <rbasak> I just realised that the Dgit control file header is specified by Debian Policy to be in the dsc file, not in the changes file.
[17:17] <rbasak> Where is appropriate for rich history supply to git-ubuntu?
[17:17] <rbasak> My branch uses the changes file. Is that wrong?
[17:41] <cjwatson> Uh.  I think the test is whether the relevant control field would be the same for that source package regardless of what the target archive is
[17:42] <cjwatson> Since the same .dsc might be copied around between different archives, but the .changes is an instruction to upload it to a particular place
[17:42] <cjwatson> (Well, aside from the fact that .changes doesn't actually name the target archive because it was designed before people were thinking in those terms.  But in principle ...)
[17:46] <rbasak> One thing I haven't covered in my changes fields fields is _intent_. What does it mean if the uploader points to a git commit?
[17:47] <rbasak> They might want it incorporated into git-ubuntu, or want something else done with it, or just one of the above.
[17:47] <rbasak> I'm not sure there's a single correct commit associated with an upload or source package either, since there are lots of parallel git repositories that are sort of relevant now (salsa, dgit, git-ubuntu, an Ubuntu package maintainer's own packaging source VCS, etc)
[17:48] <rbasak> This thought sort of ties in with your point I think
[17:49] <rbasak> Because if I specify a git-ubuntu rich history git commit in a dsc file, it's not necessarily _the_ source package's git commit.
[17:49] <rbasak> Perhaps it's more of an instruction, in which case the changes file might be more appropriate.
[17:49] <rbasak> (an instruction being associated more with the upload than with the source package itself)
[17:50] <rbasak> Maybe I should also add an intent field, so the user can confirm that they want the commit integrated into git-ubuntu. Or maybe that's overengineering it.
[17:50] <rbasak> Or, I could make the field names git-ubuntu specific.
[17:50] <rbasak> (right now I'm using Vcs-Git, Vcs-Git-Commit and Vcs-Git-Refs)