On Sat, 2022-04-30 at 00:13 +0000, Scott Kitterman wrote: > I'm still not understanding how any of that needs to have a package > we've decided not to accept sitting in New? My thinking is that debbugs would require a package (imported from new.822) to exist for maintainer addresses. If you file a bug, then remove the package from NEW, then it disappears from the BTS too and subsequent mails to the bug wouldn't have a place to be forwarded to and would go to the address for unknown packages. I suppose debbugs could allow the package state to go out of sync with NEW and instead retain the addresses for a certain period of time after packages are removed from NEW and while there are open bugs on the packages that were removed from NEW. Then some process could regularly close and archive the bugs filed by ftpmasters that were not solved. I think it would be simpler to handle this on the dak side though, by keeping the packages around, perhaps in OLD instead of NEW :) and then rejecting them after a certain time and closing the bugs. > In my mind if a package is in New it's in one of two states: > > 1. Not reviewed yet. > > 2. Partly/completely reviewed, pending resolution of a question > (e.g. prod sent to maintainer, waiting for reply). > > What's the advantage of added a third: > > 3. Not going to be accepted, waiting for a new upload or for enough > time to pass before rejecting. States 2 and 3 are very similar; there is something to be resolved with the package and it is waiting on maintainer/uploader action for that. The only difference is 2 is waiting on a reply, 3 waits on an upload. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part