It looks like a lot of this is lintian-brush generated and of questionable value, IMO. As an example, bumping compat to 12 is trivial to do.
The hard part is checking if it affects the package content, so the bot has produced a proposed change that will take far longer to verify than it would to produce. If I had time to do the checking, I don't need a merge request for the trivial bit of changing one number. I'd caution against just accepting such changes without careful review. Scott K On December 6, 2019 9:34:59 AM UTC, Jonathan Carter <j...@debian.org> wrote: >Hey debian python team > >We currently have a few merge requests open: > >== tools == > >Count: 6 > >https://salsa.debian.org/groups/python-team/tools/-/merge_requests > >== papt == > >Count: 8 > >https://salsa.debian.org/groups/python-team/applications/-/merge_requests > >== dpmt == > >Count: 31 > >https://salsa.debian.org/groups/python-team/modules/-/merge_requests > > >I merged a bunch of trivial ones yesterday, but even then it seems like >we have some problems which might need some update in our policy in >dealing with merge requests. > >I noticed that one MR fixed some typos but did it in the upstream >source >directly, which isn't all that useful to us. > >For other MRs, I noticed that many small changes in the packaging >didn't >have an associated changelog entry with it, so I had to dch to add a >changelog entry. I think for small changes I'd prefer the person who >submits the MR to add them. For larger ones it probably makes sense not >to do that since it might take longer. > >Any suggestions? How about we draft some MR policy in gobby and get it >added to the PAPT/DPMT policies? > >-Jonathan