#78257 Request for merging "emacs-team" branch

Received: (at 78257) by debbugs.gnu.org; 25 Jun 2025 17:08:34 +0000
From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Jun 25 13:08:34 2025
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38272 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1uUTbt-0001Mb-LB
	for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2025 13:08:34 -0400
Received: from ditigal.xyz ([2a01:4f8:1c1b:6a1c::]:35708 helo=mail.ditigal.xyz)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <rutherther@ditigal.xyz>)
 id 1uUTbr-0001LP-9S
 for 78257@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2025 13:08:32 -0400
Received: by cerebrum (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id 646de140
 (TLSv1.3:TLS_CHACHA20_POLY1305_SHA256:256:NO); 
 Wed, 25 Jun 2025 17:08:23 +0000 (UTC)
From: Rutherther <rutherther@ditigal.xyz>
To: 78257@debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Request for merging "emacs-team" branch
In-Reply-To: <aE7zATuaWWbI6_Bb@jurong>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2025 19:08:22 +0200
Message-ID: <87frfneol5.fsf@ditigal.xyz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ditigal.xyz;
 i=@ditigal.xyz; q=dns/txt; s=20240917; t=1750871304; h=from : to : cc
 : subject : in-reply-to : date : message-id : mime-version :
 content-type : from; bh=f1fvI80UcuHYLNkDVQyRnh1EqUcqOA4IqL6fkaqJprs=;
 b=T4jvDcPCJ/HbXwV1Xcs9tcW7LNvFtHN0gOoxB5muBJi1sVFFFQQI3+PCx8m5qXusle6X9
 65Nxoo9ZS0x/l/U0tihc7NssdBfmKSsIT54tfl4sJoX4Xx0xLlRV6Wl7nOgiR+W9K6MPDce
 0HfvJ6Yh7kw2NMZ4rY8op0ibjBQNsSg=
X-Spam-Score: 2.5 (++)
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org",
 has NOT identified this incoming email as spam.  The original
 message has been attached to this so you can view it or label
 similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
 the administrator of that system for details.
 Content preview:  Hi, > Following policy, I have deleted the emacs-team branch,
 after checking > (manually) that there are no pull requests towards this
 branch on codeberg. I am wondering... does this policy still make sense with
 codeberg and PRs? If a person knows what team their change goes on, and they
 know it can't go directly to master, wouldn't it be beneficial to [...] 
 Content analysis details:   (2.5 points, 10.0 required)
 pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
 2.0 PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD      Untrustworthy TLDs
 [URI: ditigal.xyz (xyz)]
 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE          SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 -0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
 0.5 FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD   From abused NTLD
X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 78257
Cc: Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr>, ngraves@ngraves.fr,
 Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler@gmail.com>
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request@debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request@debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request@debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: 2.5 (++)
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org",
 has NOT identified this incoming email as spam.  The original
 message has been attached to this so you can view it or label
 similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
 the administrator of that system for details.
 
 Content preview:  Hi, > Following policy, I have deleted the emacs-team branch,
    after checking > (manually) that there are no pull requests towards this
   branch on codeberg. I am wondering... does this policy still make sense with
    codeberg and PRs? If a person knows what team their change goes on, and they
    know it can't go directly to master, wouldn't it be beneficial to [...] 
 
 Content analysis details:   (2.5 points, 10.0 required)
 
  pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
  2.0 PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD      Untrustworthy TLDs
                             [URI: ditigal.xyz (xyz)]
  0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE          SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 -0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
  0.5 FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD   From abused NTLD
  1.0 BULK_RE_SUSP_NTLD      Precedence bulk and RE: from a suspicious TLD
 -1.0 MAILING_LIST_MULTI     Multiple indicators imply a widely-seen list
                             manager