Web lists-archives.com

Re: Updated proposal for improving the FTP NEW process

On March 10, 2018 11:13:46 AM UTC, Andreas Tille <andreas@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Hi Chris,
>On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 02:44:32PM +0000, Chris Lamb wrote:
>> > I think the suggestion of randomized spot checking is meant to
>replace - 
>> > not add - to the present system of checking that penalizes uploads
>> > existing source but new binaries.  So human resources should not be
>> > issue.
>> In my experience, time/energy/focus is not as fungible or easily
>> transferable as you imply.
>I share your assumption that if we try to get a real random set of
>packages checked instead of checking those who are ending up by random
>reasons in new we will end up with less re-checked packages.  However,
>this does not give any good reason for keeping the habit to re-check
>packages where a resulting binary package is not inside the package
>pool.  It somehow reminds me to those people who were asked: "Why are
>you doing this?" and gave the answer: "Since we did so all the time."
>We all know that ftpmasters have a lot of work and this thread is about
>convincing ftpmaster to stop some work that does not belong to their
>initial task which is *checking new source packages*.

I'm afraid you have a rather narrower view of the FTP Master role than the project [1], in particular, "... oversee and maintain the well-being of Debian's official package repositories ...".  The specifics listed later in the delegation message are examples, not an all inclusive list.

Checks during binary New are very much part of that task.  I know most people who aren't part of the team mostly interact with the FTP Team because of Source New, but in many respects it's one of the least important things the team does to keep the archive healthy.

Scott K

[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2017/11/msg00001.html