On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 16:11:25 (CET), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 02:26:19PM +0100, Arnout Engelen wrote:
>> I wanted to remind you that stretchplayer is, as far as I can see,
>> ready for upload.
>> As I didn't want to nag, but didn't want this package to be forgotten
>> about either, I talked to Reinhard on IRC about a way to keep
>> track. Using usertags to tag the (ITP) bugs seems like a reasonable
>> approach. A report of tags can be obtained by:
>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=pkg-multimedia-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org;tag=upload-requested
>> I'd say this tag could also be used on other bugs for which a fix is
>> available in our git.
>> If this seems like a good idea to you, too, I'll document this at the
>> wiki.
> Hmm.  If the intend is to maintain an overview of a relatively large
> pile of pending tasks then using usertags seem sensible to me.
> But if the intend is to ping DDs then posting to our mailinglist is
> better IMO.

Both can be done with the very same email, just like Arnout just did.

For me as sponsor, I wish a ready and up-to-date list of packages that
require review and uploading, and I hope that this approach helps
here. The thing is that I cannot really predict when I have how much
time to devote for pkg-multimedia. Usually, it is not that much at a
time, and I usually start with reading the mailing list. And by the time
I stumble about an upload request, I have to move on to non-debian
related things. With just a list, I could get to the reviewing step much

> Related to this it might be interesting to compare with how the Perl
> team does it:
> When a package is in progress, the distribution field in changelog is
> set to UNRELEASED, and when the (main) maintainer(s) feel the package is
> ready for release the field is changed to unstable (or experimental or
> whatever is appropriate).

I think this is reasonable and to my observation, is already happening
in pkg-multimedia.

> This (ab)use of the release field is supported by tools like debchange,
> and is also used in the tool PET which AFAIK informs on IRC about
> pending packages.  PET was written for Subversion and currently does not
> support git - the Perl team is interested in that improvement, so if
> anyone here use IRC and see the benefit of that improvement, there is an
> open challenge for you.

Having a PET instance for our team would be really cool to have!

> To me it seems that if we go for a more formal way to hint packages
> being ready for release, then it makes sense to use (parts of) same
> approach the Perl team use.  Perhaps it then makes sense - instead of
> improving PET or in addition to that - to write a git hook which
> auto-applies usertags?

On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 16:45:41 (CET), Arnout Engelen wrote:

> So when this hook is triggered it would check the changelog, and if the 
> distribution field of the latest entry is something other than UNRELEASED, it 
> would add the 'upload-requested' usertag to any bugs closed in this changelog 
> entry?

I don't think this would be a good idea. While the bug in question might
be fixed, the package in git might not be 'good' enough for upload
because of other reasons. This cannot be decided automatically.

Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4

pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to