Re: NEW processing
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 14:29, Lucas Nussbaum <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 03/12/08 at 13:56 +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
>> Lucas Nussbaum <email@example.com> (03/12/2008):
>> > That's not true. We imposed that reviewing step to ourselves, and, if
>> > it's doing more harm (by slowing down development and annoying
>> > contributors) than good (by detecting mistakes and improving Debian's
>> > overall quality), we could simply decide to drop it. (or to drop it
>> > partially, for some categories of uploads).
>> How do you see the legalese aspect? In the harm or good box?
> I don't think that we should drop the legal review (that would probably
> be dangerous). However, NEW reviews seem to cover a lot of other
> aspects currently, which might explain why it takes so much time.
> If people feel that a reviewing service is needed, we could split
> that out of NEW processing and have a separate service (or just use
> debian-mentors@ and http://mentors.debian.net).
>> > always let some things get thought while they shouldn't) rather than
> | Lucas Nussbaum
> | firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
> | jabber: email@example.com GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Perhaps a way to relive the ftp-masters is an infrastructure to report
errors in NEW packages to the ftp-masters; Then the ftp-masters only
need to do an full review on packages which has not gotten any reviews
on them, and can reject a package quickly by investigating the error
found in the report.
/Carl Fürstenberg <firstname.lastname@example.org>