Re: A proposal for improving transparency of the FTP NEW process
On 03/02/2018 01:00 PM, Gert Wollny wrote:
> Since ftp-master also sometimes sends messages like "I let it pass for
> now, but please fix it with the next upload", using the package issue
> tracker would also be a way to keep track of these minor issues.
For this, we have the BTS. If the issue is RC, it will prevent shit from
migrating. Salsa's issue tracker doesn't have this feature.
Also, I would really have preferred if Salsa's issue tracker feature was
simply removed/desactivated, because every other day, there's someone
proposing to replace debbug with it. Thanks but no thanks. One place is
enough to look into. If you wish to write somewhere, the ITP bug is the
correct place to go.
On 03/02/2018 01:15 PM, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> Counter proposal: let's work on ways in which uploaders can make it
> easy and quick for ftp masters to review packages in NEW.
I've sent so many packages through NEW that I sometimes feel guilty
about it. Though I don't know how to make it easy for them.
On 03/02/2018 01:15 PM, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> The idea
> should be, in my opinion, that any package that requires more than a
> day of work to review should be rejected by default.
Let's reject the Linux kernel, Qemu, etc.: they are too big... :)
More seriously: big software are more complex, but probably also more
useful for our users. So your proposal doesn't feel right.
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
P.S: Why on earth do we need to have the ftpmaster@d.o as Cc? Don't you
guys believe they read debian-devel without cc-ing them?
Reply to: