[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Open RFS lacking (further) response



> On 2010-10-30 08:59, Michael Tautschnig wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > One technical question, however, remains: Could we have some list of packages
> > that remain to be reviewed? Just telling people "please review some package" is
> > pretty awkward...
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > Michael
> > 
> 
> Asheesh: Sounds like you got a feature request for Debexpo!
> 
> Currently we got a list of "unanswered" list emails at [1]; though it
> has a couple of issues (not limited to it not updating regularly). It
> also creates a number of false-positives (e.g. "nanoblogger-extra" was
> also handled in the reply to the "nanoblogger" email, but detecting this
> is non-trivial).
> 

[...]

I think this is a superb step in the right direction; while clearly the list on
mentors.debian.net, as suggested in another email in this thread, is the more
comprehensive list of packages in need of sponsorship, this web page is a proper
list of RFS needing attention.

I have no idea about the technical details of this script, but the following
would seem like interesting improvements:

- Have it run daily, if possible. As you said, its pretty much out-of-date
  already.
- Could the list of open RFS be checked against
  http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html and maybe, possibly using UDD, against
  the list of packages already in the archives? If the version can be extracted
  from the RFS, then a check against UDD could help cleanup such
  nanoblogger-extra cases.

Best regards,
Michael

Attachment: pgp12vJyB5VA6.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: