Web lists-archives.com

Re: A proposal for improving transparency of the FTP NEW process

On Friday, March 02, 2018 02:23:00 PM Gert Wollny wrote:
> Am Freitag, den 02.03.2018, 07:39 -0500 schrieb Scott Kitterman:
> > On Friday, March 02, 2018 01:00:57 PM Gert Wollny wrote:
> > > Dear all,
> > > 
> > > as the one who is the uploader of the package that is currently
> > > longest
> > > in the NEW pipeline (vtk7), I'd like to make a proposal how
> > > transparency and also the interaction from non ftp-master members
> > > to
> > > review packages could be improved.
> > > 
> > > Short version: Use the salsa per-package issue tracker for problems
> > > that come up with the review in NEW.
> > 
> > No.  I think the short version of your proposal is:
> > 
> > If the FTP team spent more time on tracking status more stuff would
> > get through New.
> There is a reason why I wrote "reviewes" in my proposal, and not "ftp-
> master": this kind of tracking could be an incentive for more people to
> get involved reviewing other peoples packages, because it gives a clear
> path for contribution, and adding to it what I wrote as answer to
> Samuel, there is also the possibility for recognition of this review
> work by adding an "Reviewed-By:" entry to the changelog.
> Apart from that, I would guess is that the ftp team already does some
> tracking.

Because we don't know if a package is even distributable until after it's 
reviewed, packages in New are not available outside the FTP Team to review.  I 
don't expect that to change.

When an issue is noted or a question raised in a package review, we have a 
standard mechanism for prodding the uploader (person who prepared the change) 
via email.  For the case of a package that's been a long time in New with now 
feedback, the best way to find out the status is to ask in #debian-ftp.  There 
isn't always someone available to answer immediately, but questions to 
generally get answered.

Scott K