Re: Updated proposal for improving the FTP NEW process
- Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2018 10:19:37 +0100
- From: Gert Wollny <gw.fossdev@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Updated proposal for improving the FTP NEW process
Am Mittwoch, den 07.03.2018, 08:09 +0100 schrieb Joerg Jaspert:
> If someone comes up with a patch to process-new which does this in a
> halfway reliable way, it doesn't need a long time wasting thread on
> devel to get it.
Sure thing, I'll give it a try. Since I'm not familiar with the dak
code, would you be so kind to point me to the functions and variables
(if available) that are there to
- extract or hold the bugs listed in the last changelog entry,
- query the BTS (to be able to get the header and see whether
it's a ITP) (if this is not available I can get that probably
- where you compose the final email (to add the bug in the CC).
Apart from that, AFAICS most of the discussion was around handling non-
ITP uploads that have to go through NEW, it's kind of orthogonal to
> > (2) To improve the initial quality of uploads to NEW I also propose
> > the introduction a (voluntary) review step: Someone who is
> > interested in getting additional reviews to a package before
> > uploading it to NEW could file a "Request for review" (RFR) bug
> > against wnpp. [...]
> And that is thankfully something everyone can just do (ask your peers
> for review). And is something that got proposed tons of times. Never
> see anything come from it.
I've not seen all the other proposals, so I can't comment, but simply
asking the peers doesn't make the process very public. In the worst
case the exchange is private. Handling such a review within the BTS
would help making the process visible to all, and adding the "Reviewed-
By" to the changelog and posssibly to the QA page would give
recognizable reputation of the reviewers.
In any case, you are right that everything apart from adding the R-b to
the QA page can simply be done, a formalization would be nice but is
initially not needed.