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

Re: Q to all candidates: NEW queue



Le 27/03/2020 à 09:22, Ulrike Uhlig a écrit :
> Hi!
> 
> On 26.03.20 15:05, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>> On 26/03/20 at 14:42 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> 
>> A/
>> - package is uploaded
>> - package waits in NEW
>> - package gets reviewed, gets accepted in unstable with a bug filed
>> - bug gets fixed
>>
>> B/
>> - package is uploaded
>> - package gets accepted in unstable
>> - package gets reviewed, a bug is filed
>> - bug gets fixed
>>
>> Except that with (B), we avoid the wait in NEW.
> 
> In scenario B, the wait is shorter, but there is no guarantee that the
> bug gets fixed in an appropriate time frame.
> 
>> One important question is: how often does the FTP team run into a
>> package that is so problematic that accepting it in Debian with an RC
>> bug is not an option?
> 
> Another question is: what other things are reviewed by the FTP team?
> Like, is there some sort of basic security review, are there packages
> that are not appropriate to be uploaded to the archive for some reason
> or another? And then this would not just result in an RC bug, I guess?
> 
> Ulrike

Hi

And what about creating "pre-ftp-master" in teams ? They could fix team
policy and do a technical review. This will avoid common errors and may
decrease ftp-master work.

This proposition is based on JS-Team experience: some people pushed JS
packages without knowing JS tools and practices. These packages often
contains pre-build objects and a few other common errors. Sadly some DD
push such packages with JS-Team as maintainer without being member of
this team, neither asking for help/review from JS team!

Then scenario C:
 - package is uploaded
 - ftp-master redirects package to pre-ftp-master(s) [using BTS?] who
   are concerned
 - package gets pre-ftp-master(s) review [BTS(s) closed]
 - package gets ftp-master's review
 - package is released

Cheers,
Xavier


Reply to: