Web lists-archives.com

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

Paul Gevers <elbrus@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Hi,
> On 03-03-18 11:57, Ben Finney wrote:
> > A large code base with complex interacting works of copyright can be
> > broken into smaller packages, that are each individually easier to
> > review and pass through NEW; either built as separate source
> > packages, or combined at build time.
> Except if there is one upstream tar ball. Do you really suggest we
> should repack one upstream tar ball into multiple smaller tar balls
> just for the review process?

To say “should” is rather too strong. I'm presenting it as one option to
try, for those who are frustrated at the slow review process for a large,
complex source package with complex copyright interactions: Break it
into more easily-reviewed pieces.

The review process is an acknowledged bottleneck for NEW queue
processing, and we've seen stated that large, complex source packages
are especially difficult to get through.

I'm proposing that the same code base as a set of smaller source
packages will get through that bottleneck easier; I don't say that as a
recommendation nor a “should”, but as an option to try, for those of us
who not FTPmaster and are looking for ways to work better with the

 \       “Whenever you read a good book, it's like the author is right |
  `\   there, in the room talking to you, which is why I don't like to |
_o__)                                   read good books.” —Jack Handey |
Ben Finney