Re: 2 months and no upload for pkg

[Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com>]

On Friday, September 05, 2014 18:21:28 Daniel Pocock wrote:
> On 05/09/14 17:48, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > It is true that long NEW processing queues is a big problem.  But it
> > appears that a substantial amount of core team effort is being used to
> > deal with poor submissions.  If we can fix that, we can fix the long
> > queue.
> 
> This is really the root of the problem and I agree that it would be nice
> to find ways to help them.  A solution is good for the FTP masters and
> good for the project.
> 
> Another way to look at your proposal may be to compare it to
> alternatives (I'm not suggesting I personally agree with all of these,
> but they are just some things that come to mind):
> 
> a) let people self-certify packages when they wrote 100% of the code
> themselves.  People abusing this privilege would lose it.
> 
> b) offer some facility for upstreams to certify their packages as 100%
> free software by completing a DEP-5-like template and signing it with
> the same key they use to sign their tags and release announcements.
> 
> c) offer a paid review service.  FTP masters and assistants can sell
> their time through an auction process.  Uploaders and interested third
> parties can bid for packages to be reviewed.  If they reject a package,
> it goes back to its original place in the queue unless somebody pays for
> them to spend more time on it.  Some people may feel that this will
> deter the FTP masters from reviewing packages unless all uploaders start
> paying while other people may feel that this funding would give the FTP
> masters more time.  Maybe the fee could include a surcharge of 33% to
> cover regular queue processing, so for every 3 packages that pay, one
> package is taken from the front of the queue as well?  The rate of the
> surcharge could be variable to keep the backlog within a 2 week target
> range.
> 
> d) the upload with binary JARs inside it was accepted by the NEW queue
> software.  Maybe the scripts could be stricter about rejecting such
> packages before they reach FTP masters?  Do the FTP masters publish
> statistics on rejections that could be used to identify the top things
> to scan and reject automatically?
> 
> Are there other alternatives that people can think of?

e) Stop uploading crap packages to the archive.

I know there are lots of ways to go wrong and it's time consuming and annoying 
and you're busy.  Imagine how much more annoying it is to have to deal with 
all of it.  The low quality of package uploads is (at least for me) 
demotivating.  As an FTP Assistant, I want time I invest in reviewing a 
package to result in something going into the archive.  Every time it doesn't 
I feel like I've had my time wasted.

Here's one tip I've given people before:

grep -ir copyright * 

Do that over your source and then compare what you have in debian/copyright.  
You might be surprised how often that turns up missing stuff.  Check your own 
packages at least as carefully as you expect the FTP Team to check it.

Scott K