Re: A proposal for improving transparency of the FTP NEW process

Hi Chris, On Sat, Mar 03, 2018 at 07:33:22PM +, Chris Lamb wrote: > Steffen Möller wrote: > > > But you are a celebrity. Just not the kind of celebrity that gets > > free coffee at Starbucks, though. Except for when you fix their Wifi, > > I mean. But if I was an ftpadmin and saw a package

Re: A proposal for improving transparency of the FTP NEW process

On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 03:11:48PM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote: > On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 13:51 +0100, Gert Wollny wrote: > > How do you want to achieve this with a source package that has 13k+ > > source files and where upstream does not provide a standard license > > header for each file? I.e.

Re: A proposal for improving transparency of the FTP NEW process

On Saturday, 3 March 2018 07:54:00 CET Lars Wirzenius wrote: > We have licencecheck, and if that isn't good enough, we can improve > it. That's my cue to advertise "cme update dpkg-copyright" that uses licencecheck output to provide a debian/copyright file See [1] for details (and limitations)

Re: A proposal for improving transparency of the FTP NEW process

On Sun, Mar 04, 2018 at 11:16:29PM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote: > P.S: Why on earth do we need to have the ftpmaster@d.o as Cc? Don't you > guys believe they read debian-devel without cc-ing them? Well, at least some active DDs *don't* read d-d@ and I can understand why. -- WBR, wRAR

Re: A proposal for improving transparency of the FTP NEW process

On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 5:53 PM, Philip Hands wrote: > Perhaps it's more work than licensecheck, or doesn't suit your > requirements, but there is also license-reconcile. As well as a bunch of other tools, some of which need packaging: https://wiki.debian.org/CopyrightReviewTools -- bye, pabs

Salsa issue tracker disabled for Debian group (was: A proposal for improving transparency of the FTP NEW process)

Thomas Goirand writes: > Also, I would really have preferred if Salsa's issue tracker feature > was simply removed/desactivated, because every other day, there's > someone proposing to replace debbug with it. Thanks but no thanks. As best I can tell, any project created in the

Re: A proposal for improving transparency of the FTP NEW process

On Sun, 04 Mar 2018, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 03/02/2018 01:00 PM, Gert Wollny wrote: > > Since ftp-master also sometimes sends messages like "I let it pass for > > now, but please fix it with the next upload", using the package issue > > tracker would also be a way to keep track of these minor

Re: A proposal for improving transparency of the FTP NEW process

On 03/02/2018 01:00 PM, Gert Wollny wrote: > Since ftp-master also sometimes sends messages like "I let it pass for > now, but please fix it with the next upload", using the package issue > tracker would also be a way to keep track of these minor issues. For this, we have the BTS. If the issue is

Re: A proposal for improving transparency of the FTP NEW process

Gert Wollny writes: > Am Freitag, den 02.03.2018, 17:49 +0100 schrieb Philip Hands: >> Gert Wollny writes: >> >> > Am Freitag, den 02.03.2018, 14:01 +0100 schrieb Iustin Pop: >> > > >> > > How do you (we) know the package indeed is DFSG-compliant,

Re: A proposal for improving transparency of the FTP NEW process

Paul Gevers writes: > Hi, > > On 03-03-18 11:57, Ben Finney wrote: > > A large code base with complex interacting works of copyright can be > > broken into smaller packages, that are each individually easier to > > review and pass through NEW; either built as separate source >

Re: A proposal for improving transparency of the FTP NEW process

Le samedi 03 mars 2018 à 21:57:42+1100, Ben Finney a écrit : > Lars Wirzenius writes: > > > Admittedly, it is quite a small package, but that's kind-of my point. > > Making it easy for others to do the thing you need them to do is what > > you can do to make things easier for you.

Re: A proposal for improving transparency of the FTP NEW process

Steffen Möller wrote: > But you are a celebrity. Just not the kind of celebrity that gets > free coffee at Starbucks, though. Except for when you fix their Wifi, > I mean. But if I was an ftpadmin and saw a package of yours uploaded, > you'd find me priorising this up ... (Just for clarity, as

Re: A proposal for improving transparency of the FTP NEW process

Hi, On 03-03-18 11:57, Ben Finney wrote: > A large code base with complex interacting works of copyright can be > broken into smaller packages, that are each individually easier to > review and pass through NEW; either built as separate source packages, > or combined at build time. Except if

Re: A proposal for improving transparency of the FTP NEW process

On 3/3/18 7:54 AM, Lars Wirzenius wrote: On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 22:05 -0600, Steve Robbins wrote: I assume that the reason my packages have been processed is due to one of two reasons: a) I get quoted on LWN several times a year, so I'm a celebrity and get special treatment I expect that's

Re: A proposal for improving transparency of the FTP NEW process

Lars Wirzenius writes: > Admittedly, it is quite a small package, but that's kind-of my point. > Making it easy for others to do the thing you need them to do is what > you can do to make things easier for you. Asking them to do more work, > or to change how they do their thing, is

Re: A proposal for improving transparency of the FTP NEW process

On 2018-03-03 10:22, Chris Lamb wrote: > This is, of course, not very obvious or initiutive and improved > transparency on this would obviously be a beneficial to all parties, > let alone Debian at large. Indeed. Sometimes I see interesting packages in NEW, but don't know why they don't pass. A

Re: A proposal for improving transparency of the FTP NEW process

Hi Lars & Steve, > > Or possibly you have a more generous notion of "fast". Currently there > > are five or six dozen packages waiting more than 2 months […] > There may be other reasons why some packages stay in NEW for a long > time. Getting information from ftp masters about the reasons why

Re: A proposal for improving transparency of the FTP NEW process

On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 22:05 -0600, Steve Robbins wrote: > I assume that the reason my packages have been processed is due to one > > of two reasons: a) I get quoted on LWN several times a year, so I'm a > > celebrity and get special treatment > > I expect that's it. For the avoidance of doubt,

Re: A proposal for improving transparency of the FTP NEW process

On Friday, March 2, 2018 6:15:54 AM CST Lars Wirzenius wrote: > I'm not involved with the ftp master team in any way, except I > occasionally make them do work by uploading things that go to thew NEW > queue. In the past decade ago, the NEW processing has almost always > been fast, and when it

Re: A proposal for improving transparency of the FTP NEW process

On Fri, 02 Mar 2018 18:53:07 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote: > Because we don't know if a package is even distributable until after it's > reviewed, packages in New are not available outside the FTP Team to review. > I > don't expect that to change. That's the theory. The practice since many

Re: A proposal for improving transparency of the FTP NEW process

On Friday, March 02, 2018 02:23:00 PM Gert Wollny wrote: > Am Freitag, den 02.03.2018, 07:39 -0500 schrieb Scott Kitterman: > > On Friday, March 02, 2018 01:00:57 PM Gert Wollny wrote: > > > Dear all, > > > > > > as the one who is the uploader of the package that is currently > > > longest > > >

Re: A proposal for improving transparency of the FTP NEW process

On Fri, 02 Mar 2018, Gert Wollny wrote: > In salsa you get the links to the commits automatically, in the BTS > one would have to set these manually I guess. That was my main > incentive to propose this. There's nothing stoping us from linking to commits "automatically" in the BTS; I'd just need

Re: A proposal for improving transparency of the FTP NEW process

Quoting Gert Wollny (2018-03-02 19:02:44) > Am Freitag, den 02.03.2018, 17:49 +0100 schrieb Philip Hands: > > Gert Wollny writes: > > > > > Am Freitag, den 02.03.2018, 14:01 +0100 schrieb Iustin Pop: > > > > > > > > How do you (we) know the package indeed is

Re: A proposal for improving transparency of the FTP NEW process

Am Freitag, den 02.03.2018, 17:49 +0100 schrieb Philip Hands: > Gert Wollny writes: > > > Am Freitag, den 02.03.2018, 14:01 +0100 schrieb Iustin Pop: > > > > > > How do you (we) know the package indeed is DFSG-compliant, if > > > there > > > is no license information? If

Re: A proposal for improving transparency of the FTP NEW process

Gert Wollny writes: > Am Freitag, den 02.03.2018, 14:01 +0100 schrieb Iustin Pop: >> >> How do you (we) know the package indeed is DFSG-compliant, if there >> is no license information? If upstream cannot bother to provide >> headers, how do we know the code is indeed

Re: A proposal for improving transparency of the FTP NEW process

Philip Hands writes: > Gert Wollny writes: > ... >> Short version: Use the salsa per-package issue tracker for problems >> that come up with the review in NEW. > > Is there any significant benefit that this brings over having the same > interaction in the

Re: A proposal for improving transparency of the FTP NEW process

Am Freitag, den 02.03.2018, 07:39 -0500 schrieb Scott Kitterman: > On Friday, March 02, 2018 01:00:57 PM Gert Wollny wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > as the one who is the uploader of the package that is currently > > longest > > in the NEW pipeline (vtk7), I'd like to make a proposal how > >

Re: A proposal for improving transparency of the FTP NEW process

Am Freitag, den 02.03.2018, 14:01 +0100 schrieb Iustin Pop: > > How do you (we) know the package indeed is DFSG-compliant, if there > is no license information? If upstream cannot bother to provide > headers, how do we know the code is indeed licenced under the claimed > licence? > Etc. >

Re: A proposal for improving transparency of the FTP NEW process

On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 13:51 +0100, Gert Wollny wrote: > How do you want to achieve this with a source package that has 13k+ > source files and where upstream does not provide a standard license > header for each file? I.e. there is some license text and it needs to > be quoted, but licensecheck

Re: A proposal for improving transparency of the FTP NEW process

Am Freitag, den 02.03.2018, 13:38 +0100 schrieb Philip Hands: > Gert Wollny writes: > ... > > Short version: Use the salsa per-package issue tracker for problems > > that come up with the review in NEW. > > Is there any significant benefit that this brings over having the >

Re: A proposal for improving transparency of the FTP NEW process

On 2018-03-02 13:51:24, Gert Wollny wrote: > Am Freitag, den 02.03.2018, 14:15 +0200 schrieb Lars Wirzenius: > > > > > > Counter proposal: let's work on ways in which uploaders can make it > > easy and quick for ftp masters to review packages in NEW. The idea > > should be, in my opinion, that

Re: A proposal for improving transparency of the FTP NEW process

Am Freitag, den 02.03.2018, 14:15 +0200 schrieb Lars Wirzenius: > > > Counter proposal: let's work on ways in which uploaders can make it > easy and quick for ftp masters to review packages in NEW. The idea > should be, in my opinion, that any package that requires more than a > day of work to

Re: A proposal for improving transparency of the FTP NEW process

Gert Wollny writes: ... > Short version: Use the salsa per-package issue tracker for problems > that come up with the review in NEW. Is there any significant benefit that this brings over having the same interaction in the BTS? I realise that Gitlab is the new shiny thing,

Re: A proposal for improving transparency of the FTP NEW process

On Friday, March 02, 2018 01:00:57 PM Gert Wollny wrote: > Dear all, > > as the one who is the uploader of the package that is currently longest > in the NEW pipeline (vtk7), I'd like to make a proposal how > transparency and also the interaction from non ftp-master members to > review packages

Re: A proposal for improving transparency of the FTP NEW process

Am Freitag, den 02.03.2018, 13:10 +0100 schrieb Samuel Thibault: > Hello, > > This reminds me a discussion at debconf: it could be useful that > anybody be able to submit issues with the NEW package, so that for > obvious things ftpmaster doesn't even have to spend time, and ideally > ftpmaster

Re: A proposal for improving transparency of the FTP NEW process

On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 13:00 +0100, Gert Wollny wrote: > as the one who is the uploader of the package that is currently longest > in the NEW pipeline (vtk7), I'd like to make a proposal how > transparency and also the interaction from non ftp-master members to > review packages could be improved.

Re: A proposal for improving transparency of the FTP NEW process

Hello, This reminds me a discussion at debconf: it could be useful that anybody be able to submit issues with the NEW package, so that for obvious things ftpmaster doesn't even have to spend time, and ideally ftpmaster would only look at packages which have already been reviewed not only by the

A proposal for improving transparency of the FTP NEW process

Dear all, as the one who is the uploader of the package that is currently longest in the NEW pipeline (vtk7), I'd like to make a proposal how transparency and also the interaction from non ftp-master members to review packages could be improved. Short version: Use the salsa per-package issue