Re: Reconsider sending ITP bugs to debian-devel: a new list?
Steve McIntyre dijo [Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 01:45:20PM +0000]:
> >I think the ITP mails can make reading the rest of the list difficult
> >without extra local filtering or steps. Some times they are the
> >majority of the list traffic. I think it would be better if
> >ITP mail went to a separate, dedicated list, e.g. "debian-itp" to which
> >contributors are encouraged to subscribe and participate.
>
> To be honest, I think if we did that we'd lose just about all the
> reviews that currently happen. The whole point of sending ITPs to
> d-devel is that they will be seen by a wider audience, but I can't see
> many signing up for YA mailing list for them.
I concur with Steve. Often, I decide to ignore ITPs, or get annoyed or
overwhelmed when very prolific teams (hi nodejs!) announce and set to
package hundreds of packages I won't have any interest on.
But WNPP is problematic on its own: Right now, we have 1586 normal
priority open bugs, 4613 wishlist open bugs (what would the difference
be? It seems *most* normal are O and RFA, while ITPs, RFPs and such
are mostly wishlist... but it's not entirely consistent) between ITA,
ITP, O, RFA, RFH. Quite probably, many of them have just slipped of
anybody's sight and will never be acted upon. Yes, they document work
needed, but are barely visible for us if we don't explicitly go out
searching for them.
We have 20 year old RFPs (#119911, even with nice bug numbers!), 17
year old ITPs (#237925). And this is news to nobody.
I do, however, find value in getting notices when people file new
ITPs. It helps me know what people are up to, and makes me notice some
interesting new things to be on the outlook for. Of course, an ITP
makes no promises... and my RSS reader is subscribed to the list of
packages approved for NEW¹.
¹ https://packages.debian.org/sid/newpkg?format=rss
So... All in all, I prefer to keep getting ITPs as part of this
mailing list, with all and the occasional thread that develops from
some of them. If we move them somewhere else, they will become
effectively irrelevant.
Reply to: