Re: call for ftpmaster's transparency
Le 09/02/2020 à 18:12, gregor herrmann a écrit :
> On Sun, 09 Feb 2020 04:04:25 -0600, Michael Lustfield wrote:
>
>> I would personally *LOVE* to see ITPs be a requirement for *ALL* new packages.
>
> Fine with me.
>
>> Making it a requirement and expecting ftp-masters to ignore any upload until
>> the ITP has existed for at least X days would be absolutely fantastic.
>
> Ehm, please, no.
> I would find it highly interruptive for my work if I'd have to wait
> for X days.
+1: don't add another delay for NEW queue!
>> It would
>> fix some redundant library uploads (see golang/nodejs/etc.) and it would
>> provide a mandatory level of review by the wider community.
>> Back when I tried to get gitea packaged for main, I had a number of ITPs
>> commented/closed mentioning the alternate library name or a reason it can't be
>> packaged.
>
> Maybe that's helpful for some teams, in the perl team our tools
> (dh-make-perl in particular) check for existing packages and existing
> wnpp bugs.
Same for JS Team, our npm2deb tool shows if library already exists
>> Why do reviews take so long?
>
> As a side note: Not all reviews take long, there's seems to be quite
> some variance in the time they take.
>
>
> Cheers,
> gregor, who's usually very happy with the turnaround time of
> NEW packages
Same when I'm working in Perl Team, but not when I'm packaging Node.js
modules :-/
Cheers,
Xavier
Reply to: