Re: emacs-git-email: Guix policy for dealing with abandoned packages with active forks

[Suhail Singh <suhailsingh247@gmail.com>]

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 <suhailsingh247@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.fsf@posteo.de%3E>
>
> [2]: <https://lists.sr.ht/~yoctocell/git-email-devel/%3Ccc4a1b8b-9a1d-46cf-9b04-466c85ebcd44@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