On Thu, 2024-07-25 at 21:43 +0200, Bart Martens wrote: > On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 07:27:13PM +0100, Phil Wyett wrote: > > On Tue, 2024-07-23 at 20:07 +0200, Bart Martens wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 08:51:32AM +0100, Phil Wyett wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2024-07-22 at 10:26 -0700, Soren Stoutner wrote: > > > > > On Monday, July 22, 2024 8:08:08 AM MST Phil Wyett wrote: > > > > > > Your absolutely right. The use of these tags would be better and I shall do > > > > > > so. When Salvo wishes to browse ready packages, all that needs to be done is > > > > > > follow the below link: > > > > > > > > > > > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi? > > > > > include=tags%3Aconfirmed;package > > > > > > =sponsorship-requests > > > > > > > > > > Why not use mark it as ready using both the tags and the email subject? That > > > > > way, people using either interface can easily see RFPs that are ready. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi again, > > > > > > > > Thought... Would changing subject cause issue with the scripts of 'bartm' > > > > that run against mentors? > > > > > > It is currently unclear what exactly the question is. Can I help here? > > > > > > > Hi Bart, > > > > Apologies, I should have explained. > > > > To more easily show if a package on mentors with RFS is ready for a DD to > > look at/is sane. It has been request that amending the subject/RFS title with > > "Ready", "Confirmed" or similar too it. Would your scripts see a change and > > revert any addition something else? > > Thanks for asking and explaining. > > Well, an RFS in itself already expresses a request for sponsorship, meaning > that the package should be availabe for review. When the package is not > available, or no longer needs reviewing, then there should be no open RFS. > > There is also the flag "needs a sponsor=yes" at mentors.d.n expressing a > request for sponsorship. Keeping this flag (and the package version) in sync > with the RFS is often forgotten. > > I believe that adding something in the RFS title expressing somewhat the same, > would complicate things even more. New packagers are already often confused on > when to open or close an RFP, ITP, RFA, O, ITA or RFS, against wnpp or > sponsorship-requests or the package name, and also on whether to use > mentors.d.n or an RFS or both. And on whether one should ask for a review on > the debian-mentors mailing list. > > So I would rather like to see things simplified, for both packagers and > sponsors. In my view a web interface like mentors.d.n is easier understood by > newcomers. So maybe the better choice could be dropping RFSes alltogether? > > Does the above answer your question? > > > > > Regards > > > > Phil > > > > -- > > "I play the game for the game’s own sake" > > > > Arthur Conan Doyle - The Adventure of the Bruce-Partington Plans > > > > -- > > > > Internet Relay Chat (IRC): kathenas > > > > Website: https://kathenas.org > > > > Instagram: https://instagram.com/kathenasorg/ > > > > Buy Me A Coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/kathenasorg > > > > -- > > > > > Hi Bart, Thanks for the explanation and yes it is clear to me. Dropping RFSs IMO would require: * Retaining the conversation on the mentors.d.n submissions. Currently conversation can be per upload, with older uploads allowed to be deleted that removes that entries conversation. * Documenting that a submitter should not mark as "Ready". * Adding "Ready" column to packages list page. No need to browse into every entry to be able to tell if it is or isn't. * Conversation per submission sent to the mentors list. Not an exhaustive list, just quick thoughts. I have decided that editing subject lines is not viable for me, so I have voiced that in another email. Regards Phil -- "I play the game for the game’s own sake" Arthur Conan Doyle - The Adventure of the Bruce-Partington Plans -- Internet Relay Chat (IRC): kathenas Website: https://kathenas.org Instagram: https://instagram.com/kathenasorg/ Buy Me A Coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/kathenasorg --
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part