Re: NEW processing
Hi,
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>> It's funny that you bring this up in the thread originiating with this
>> specific example.
> I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Could you elaborate?
The particular pass through NEW that has been used to demonstrate the
deficiency of NEW processing was necessitated by the rename
iceweasel-l10n-hi to iceweasel-l10n-hi-in introduced in the previous
upload (and processed in 3-4 days or so). This rename took place after
uninstallability of iceweasel-l10n-all had been pointed out to the
maintainer after he asked for an unblock on release. In essence, this
whole trip through NEW would not have happened if the maintainer would
actually routinely install his packages before uploading. I am all in
favor of fast-tracking urgent stuff, but the deal should involve the
maintainer making extra-sure to get things right, too.
That is in the past, so I did not want to comment about it in itself.
However, you are now using this as an example how the NEW process needs
to be streamlined. Sure, package renames could be processed quicker in
NEW, but I would much rather that people put enough thought to get their
package naming good enough to not need renames often. They are a pain
and disservice to our users, too. For totally NEW package the main
time-eater is checking the copyright stuff already, with everything else
being negligible in comparison.
Unless you maintain that the former case should be constituting a large
number of packages needing to pass NEW, the main room for optimization
lies elsewhere[1].
Kind regards
T.
1. Last time I grepped for statistics, about 10% of completely NEW
packages were rejected for deficiencies in licensing/copyright
documentation. This has been a while, though.
--
Thomas Viehmann, http://thomas.viehmann.net/
Reply to: