Nguyễn Gia Phong via "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." <[email protected]> writes:
> Hi, > > On 2026-10-28 at 01:49+01:00, Simon Tournier wrote: >> Moreover, please note the variant of [...] to add the label (tag) >> “kind/gen-ai-suspect“. Maybe it could just be “package-ai-suspect”? >> >> All in all, concretely we could agree on a rule like: >> >> 1. A reviewer marks as “package-ai-suspect“ a package contribution that >> looks suspicious. >> 2. The reviewer pings another committer for an opinion. >> 3. If the suspicion is confirmed by 2 people, then the package >> contribution is rejected with a pre-formatted message. >> 4. If no one provides a second opinion, then after 3 months the >> package contribution is closed. >> >> WDYT? > > I think the suspicion tag is quite rude, if it turns out to be > a false positive. I suggest a new-packages team that get pinged > on package additions so people who care to join the team > can be notified and block it under their suspicion, which is confirmed > by inquiring the contributor or upstream. This also means new packages > must wait a standard period (1 week? 2?) before being merged > even after approval(s). This is something that would actually make sense though. Mirroring the DFSG team Debian has[0]. My personal opinion is that the approval of such team should be made a condition for adding a new package, again learning lessons from Debian. Tomas 0: https://lwn.net/Articles/1084499/ -- There are only two hard things in Computer Science: cache invalidation, naming things and off-by-one errors.
