Re: feedback for NEW packages: switch to using the BTS?
Hi Paul,
Am Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 08:54:05AM +0800 schrieb Paul Wise:
> During the discussions about NEW on debian-devel in recent times, I had
> the idea that instead of the current mechanism of sending REJECT mails,
> Debian could switch to using the BTS for most feedback on NEW packages.
>
> This means that most discussion about NEW packages would become public,
> but of course the ftpmasters could opt to send private mail instead if
> in some cases if there were sensitive issues to be discussed.
>
> The ftpmasters could simply file severity serious bug reports against
> NEW packages that have issues blocking their entry into Debian. When
> there are minor issues noticed at the same time, then file bugs of a
> lower severity. Only when a NEW package has not had its serious bugs
> fixed in a long time would an eventual removal and REJECT mail happen,
> perhaps after a few months of zero action on the bug reports.
I consider this a really nice solution for the majority of rejects and I
think a lot of good arguments were given inside the discussion you was
refering to.
> The changes that are needed to make this happen include:
>
> The community needs to decide that this change is a good idea and be
> willing to recieve most feedback on their work in public.
>
> The BTS and ftpmaster teams need to agree with this change.
> One BTS admin said this is feasible in principle and one of the
> ftpmasters seemed to like the idea when I mentioned it on IRC.
I admit I would be happy if this "seemed to like the idea" would
be confirmed here in a public place. ;-)
> Where the bug mail should go to needs to be decided on. Personally I'm
> thinking the person who did the upload plus the Maintainer field.
What about WNPP bug? When I asked ftpmaster to kindly CC their rejects
to the WNPP bug I was told that not all packages in new have WNPP bugs.
If we want to formalise this it could probably be enforced that new
packages really need to have such a bug and we only need to decide for
existing packages that need to pass NEW.
(BTW, I usually bounce any reject to the according WNPP bug to have
the issue documented in a publicly visible place where any interested
person should look.)
> The people doing processing of NEW packages need to be willing to file
> bug reports against them where necessary.
>
> dak needs to export debian/changelog version lists for NEW packages.
>
> debbugs needs to import packages/versions from the new.822 file:
>
> https://ftp-master.debian.org/new.822
>
> dak needs to link to the BTS from new.822 and the NEW packages info.
>
> https://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html
>
> The technical work needed here is minimal, so if there are no other
> volunteers to do that work, then I would be willing to do it. I have
> experience with Perl/Python but only a small amount of experience with
> working on the debbugs and dak codebases.
>
> Thoughts welcome, especially from those who don't like this idea.
Sorry, I'm amongst those who absolutely like this idea. ;-)
Thanks a lot for the follow up on the past discussion.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: