Hi.
I've reviewed most of the spec you point to on salsa. I think you might be getting some of the details before the basic principles. I agree with the principles you state, but would probably state them differently: * Incremental review is valuable and is likely to improve our processes * Minimizing duplicate review or unnecessary re-review is valuable * getting reviewers the information they need so that they are not being slowed down searching for it is valuable * Better tooling can help with the above. I tend to agree with all those principles and believe they are similar in spirit to what you state. Unfortunately, being a member of Debian, I find myself getting stuck in the details and think you may have gotten a few things wrong. * I think that reviewing a file every time the salt changes is too frequent. It is a sign that we might need to review, not that we certainly do. We don't tend to review files every time they change today, and I think pushing toward this would be problematic. * Unfortunately the srcpkg-bool problem does not decompose into a set of file-bool problems the way you describe. The issue is license compatibility. Two licenses may be DFSG-free, but their combination may not be distributable (and thus not DFSG-free). Next Steps The biggest thing I see missing here is what are the next steps? If we agree with your principles, what next? How does this work go forward?
