[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Possible DDPOMail improvements?

On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 08:46:31PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> We (Raphael Geissert, who did most of the work on that service recently,
> and me) believe those mails are useful, since we did not get too many

Thanks for maintaining this! AOL on the usefulness of the service.

> But we are constantly wondering where we should go from there. Should we
> add more data (like the RC bugs in stable and the unfixed security
> issues)? Or should we instead try to decrease the amount of data (to
> increase the signal/noise ratio), for example by not reporting about
> Lintian errors and warnings?

I remember the early days of DDPO-by-mail and the related fear of
getting accused of "SPAMing" DDs. I believe nowadays the practice of
those mails are quite accepted, and the feedback you got seems to
confirm this. So I wonder, are the mail sent sparingly by hand? (That is
what it seemed from your message, which started with «I've just sent
..») If this is the case, I wonder why; can we settle upon a regular
period (1 month?) and have them sent by default? I'd personally welcome
that: it will make me feel more "confident" that I'll be eventually
receive the next round of DDPO-by-mail.

Regarding lintian errors and warning, I'd increase the S/N ratio by
including only lintian errors that will cause automatic rejection
(lintian -F).

Thanks again for DDPO-by-mail.

Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..|  .  |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: