On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 11:39:11AM -0500, The Wanderer wrote: > >>> I would hate to entirely lose the quality review that we get via > >>> NEW, but I wonder if we could regain many those benefits by > >>> setting up some sort of peer review system for new packages that > >>> is less formal and less bottlenecked on a single team than the > >>> current NEW processing setup. > >> > >> This is a fantastic idea. > >> > >> In fact, it wouldn't have to bottleneck packages at all. I mean, > >> if a quality issue is found in NEW, wouldn't the same be an RC bug > >> preventing a transition to testing? > > > > I'm not sure "nobody ever looked at this" is a suitable criteria for > > inclusion in a stable release. We sort of have that problem now in > > crusty corners of the archive if someone uploads a bad change, but at > > least there's been one review at some point in the package's > > lifetime. > > Doesn't that, then, lead to the suggestion that any package entering > unstable without having undergone NEW review (which, in the revised > model, might be every new package) should automatically have a bug filed > against it requesting suitable review, and that bug should be treated as > a blocker for entering testing? > > That wouldn't help the "someone uploads a bad change" problem for > already-accepted packages, but it would seem to avoid the "nobody ever > looked at this" situation. > > It would also increase the number of automatically-filed bugs by quite a > lot, I suspect, which would itself be some degree of downside... This will also decrease the number of new packages in testing, which can be considered an upside too... -- WBR, wRAR
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature