Hi Raphaël and everyone, On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 07:49:40AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > I would like to design a new infrastructure that would replace the DDPO > and the PTS, fix many current problems, and enable us to introduce new > features to help package maintainers. First of all, I'd like to applaud to this. A more generic qa.d.o is something I had in mind a long time and didn't find any way to propose something useful. This could well be it. Thank you! If you allow me, I'd like to throw in a few random thoughts. I'd like this new interface to be able to produce distribution wide statistics regarding QA matters. I think this is covered by the proposal. I'd like it to produce a distribution wide todo list. It should be possible to send a bored developer or new contributor to a generic place where they can find stuff to do. Given the idea of replacing O/RFH etc. and given that interaction with the BTS is needed anyways (may it be through UDD), this should be possible. Seeing someone looking at random problems, i.e. a random orphaned package, they should be able to leave a note within this system. It has to be possible to see that a package has just been touched/checked by someone else even if they didn't find anything to work on. For instance, a perfectly healthy orphaned package should be left with a note saying "I just had a look at it, looks good to me. $timestamp". It might even influence the result of the todo list I mentioned above. I very much like the idea to join enough information for MIA purposes. Though it might be worth considering how to integrate information from VCSs. The proposal suggests to change all Maintainer fields to a generic value. I'm questioning the whole field if it contains a computable value. And what would the Uploader field hold? Should all this information be kept out of the package and be held in a central database? Given a new central source of information, should stuff like a watch file or even the Homepage field be moved out of the package into the database? Authentication should ideally be done using db.d.o plus whatever is needed to allow non-DDs. Given the interest of teams like MIA or DAM, should the interface allow roles as specified in db.d.o? (Could the MIA db vanish and be instead put here?) I don't want to over-complicate or over-think stuff. This was just random thoughts I had while reading DEP2. I'd like to discuss my ideas, obviously, and I think we should use this opportunity to re-think a lot. Though I see how over-complicating stuff can stall it which I definitely do not want. Thanks again for bringing this up! Hauke -- .''`. Jan Hauke Rahm <jhr@debian.org> www.jhr-online.de : :' : Debian Developer www.debian.org `. `'` Member of the Linux Foundation www.linux.com `- Fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe www.fsfe.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature