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

libAWSL: Improving Human Efficiency for debian/copyright Reviewer



Hi Debian Project,
(Human Efficiency Problem is non-technical)

As we know, the human efficiency in the debian/copyright reviewing process
can be optimized, reducing the development cost of the community. However,
the possibilities of performing that kind of optimization are left uncharted.

I'm hereby presenting my "libAWSL" specification, aiming to shed some light
on the software/workflow designing issues on improving human efficiency while
doing the reviewing work on `debian/copyright`:

  https://salsa.debian.org/lumin/awsl/-/blob/master/specification.md

Exhaustive details can be found in the above link. In the following part of
this mail I'm presenting some of the key points in my specification. Note,
I'm trying to do some THEORETICAL discussion on the possibility to improve
human efficiency, INSTEAD OF proposing to enforce anything.

Proposed Principles in Human-Understandable Language
----------------------------------------------------

* The reviewer does not have to review the IDENTICAL file more than once.

* The time complexity for going through a package should be less or equal
  to O(num-of-files).

Explanations can be found at:
 https://salsa.debian.org/lumin/awsl/-/blob/master/specification.md

How Can We Benifit from LibAWSL in Practice
-------------------------------------------

* Instant acceptance for source packages with merely binary package rename
  (without change in upstream code)

* More verbose and structured feedback from ftp team

* Accumulation of precious educational resources, and reducing training cost
  for ftp-trainees

* Convenient new-upstream-release checks for maintainers and reviewers

* Making the reviewing process interruptable

* Possibility for open/collaborated reviewing workflow

Explanations can be found at:
https://salsa.debian.org/lumin/awsl/-/blob/master/specification.md

---

This thread is for non-technical discussions. If it turns out that the
community can reach some common agreement, we can move to the technical
(implementation) discussions on -devel.

Mo,
For sake of a more efficient Debian Community.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: