Re: Urging for solution to the slow NEW queue process

[Andreas Tille]

Hi Chris,

On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 09:26:07AM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
> > I personally admit that getting no response to e-mails is more draining
> > on the patience than waiting for getting a package acceptet.
> 
> Perhaps so, but it doesn't quite help when your emails are regularly
> bouncing (which they have been doing so for the past few days)
> when combined with you not maintaining a persistent connection to
> IRC so I cannot respond to your subsequent "drive-by" queries there
> either. ;-)

I've definitely choosen a very bad time to claim e-mail the most
reliable way of conversation.  ;-)  But Lumins argument of mailing list
archives is a good point.

In general I need to admit that in the now close to 20 years I have
upload permissions the overall happiness about ftpmaster processing is
mostly increasing over time.  We had some very bad times when only a
single person was caring.  Since this bottleneck was solved it became
dramatically better.  There are surely times when the queue fills up but
if you give good reasons for ftpmasters why a specific package is more
important than others (like this package helps fixing RC bug #xy) or so
this is very promptly processed.

To repeat myself: Cudos to ftpmaster

 Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de

Re: Urging for solution to the slow NEW queue process

[Chris Lamb]

Dear Andreas,

> I have learned that e-mails to ftp-master work way worse than IRC
> via #debian-ftp.
[…]
> I personally admit that getting no response to e-mails is more draining
> on the patience than waiting for getting a package acceptet.

Perhaps so, but it doesn't quite help when your emails are regularly
bouncing (which they have been doing so for the past few days)
when combined with you not maintaining a persistent connection to
IRC so I cannot respond to your subsequent "drive-by" queries there
either. ;-)


Best wishes,

-- 
  ,''`.
 : :'  : Chris Lamb
 `. `'`  la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk
   `-

Re: Urging for solution to the slow NEW queue process

[Lumin]

Hi Holger,

> you didnt mention which package of yours is stuck in NEW, could you
> please elaborate? Else this seems like a rant out of the blue, without
> much checking of facts, like Phil (Hands) thankfully provided.

I was just afraid that things getting wrong seeing a large median number
of time for a package to wait, without knowing the problem of node
ecosystem since I don't write code in language whose name starts with "J".

> I also share wookey's observation that NEW is being processed more
> quickly than ever currently (and actually since quite some time now.
> Which reminds me of the situation that some people *still* think Debian
> releases are unpredictable and infreqently while in reality for the last
> 14 years we've released every 22 months or so, with a variation of 2
> months.)

I'm glad to know nothing goes wrong except for the node upstream.
Thank you everyone for letting me know the actual situation of NEW queue
:-)

-- 
Best,

Re: Fw:Re: Urging for solution to the slow NEW queue process

[Lumin]

Hi Andreas,

> The fact that the NEW queue is continuely growing is a sign that DDs are
> continuosely motivated to fill it up. ;-)  As Mattia said in his
> response patience is a feature you learn as DD and it is not a bad
> feature.

Thank you and Mattia for pointing that out.

And it would be better if the ftp-master site provide graphs indicating
"how much packages are processed". With these graphs one are
less likely to misinterpret the situation of the NEW queue.

> I have not seen any applause in this thread for your offer to help.  I
> hereby do this and thank you explicitly.  I have learned that e-mails to
> ftp-master work way worse than IRC via #debian-ftp.  May be you repeat
> your offer there.
>
> I personally admit that getting no response to e-mails is more draining
> on the patience than waiting for getting a package acceptet.  Thus
> knowing this alternative channel helped me a lot.

Sounds like a good way looking for help when next time I encountered
a problem alike. I just prefer email because conversations are archived,
while those in IRC are not.

-- 
Best,

Re: Urging for solution to the slow NEW queue process (completeed)

[Chris Lamb]

Ian Jackson wrote:

> > However, after pointing this out to Chris Lamb and re-
> > uploading the package another time he checked and accepted it in less
> > then 24 hours (big thanks again).
> 
> It strikes me that if there were comments in the ftpmaster database
> suggestiong the package should be rejected, the package ought to have
> been rejected, rather than languishing in a queue.

Mmm. (There is some inconsistency in the usage/application of these
comments which can lead to this obviously regrettable outcome.)


Regards,

-- 
  ,''`.
 : :'  : Chris Lamb
 `. `'`  la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk
   `-

Re: Urging for solution to the slow NEW queue process

[Holger Levsen]

Dear Lumin,

you didnt mention which package of yours is stuck in NEW, could you
please elaborate? Else this seems like a rant out of the blue, without
much checking of facts, like Phil (Hands) thankfully provided.

I also share wookey's observation that NEW is being processed more
quickly than ever currently (and actually since quite some time now.
Which reminds me of the situation that some people *still* think Debian
releases are unpredictable and infreqently while in reality for the last
14 years we've released every 22 months or so, with a variation of 2
months.)

So, many thanks to the FTP team from me too.


-- 
cheers,
Holger


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Urging for solution to the slow NEW queue process

[Jonathan Carter]

On 11/04/2018 17:00, Luke W Faraone wrote:
> I reviewed the relevant conversation in #debian-ftp. I think if you
> re-read it, the context makes it pretty clear that it was certainly not
> "laughing off the request" — you said something along the lines of "my
> destiny is sealed" and the response was, jokingly, you could be freed
> from that destiny by a rejection. [Then again, the conversation was in a
> language I do not speak, so maybe there's nuance that did not translate.]
> 
> I can assure you that your request to join was not silently declined,
> and has yet to be processed due to lack of time. We have onboarded
> several FTP trainees since the August 2017 call, but they are generally
> done in batches.

Thanks, I'm glad if it was indeed just a misunderstanding, because it
has bothered me a bit. I'll hope to get feedback when a future batch is
processed, then.

-Jonathan

-- 
  ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀  Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) 
  ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  Debian Developer - https://wiki.debian.org/highvoltage
  ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋   https://debian.org | https://jonathancarter.org
  ⠈⠳⣄  Be Bold. Be brave. Debian has got your back.

Re: Urging for solution to the slow NEW queue process

[Luke W Faraone]

On 11/04/18 16:12, Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) wrote:>> On Wed, Apr
11, 2018 at 07:08:21AM +, Lumin wrote:
>>> I'm only a DM and I tried to apply for FTP assistant […]

The 2010[1] and 2017[2] call for help both said that one needs to be a
DD, unless one is solely helping with dak (which is not ftpassistant).
It is hard to justify granting NEW reviewer bits if one does not already
have unrestricted upload to the archive.

[1]: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2010/03/msg3.html
[2]: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2017/08/msg00408.html

> I had a similar experience. It didn't help that the one ftp-master
> member made a comment about laughing off requests to join the ftp team.
> If they didn't want my help I'd rather get a "sorry, we don't think
> you're experienced enough yet" rather than just nothing.

I reviewed the relevant conversation in #debian-ftp. I think if you
re-read it, the context makes it pretty clear that it was certainly not
"laughing off the request" — you said something along the lines of "my
destiny is sealed" and the response was, jokingly, you could be freed
from that destiny by a rejection. [Then again, the conversation was in a
language I do not speak, so maybe there's nuance that did not translate.]

I can assure you that your request to join was not silently declined,
and has yet to be processed due to lack of time. We have onboarded
several FTP trainees since the August 2017 call, but they are generally
done in batches.

Cheers,
Luke



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Urging for solution to the slow NEW queue process

[Jonathan Carter (highvoltage)]

On 2018-04-11 16:04, Andreas Tille wrote:

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 07:08:21AM +, Lumin wrote:
Briefly speaking, if a DD was told that "Thank you for your 
contribution

to Debian but please wait for at least 2 months so that your package
can enter the archive.", will the DD still be motivated working on NEW
packages??? Please convince me if you think that doesn't matter.


The fact that the NEW queue is continuely growing is a sign that DDs 
are

continuosely motivated to fill it up. ;-)  As Mattia said in his
response patience is a feature you learn as DD and it is not a bad
feature.


When I sponsor packages on mentors.debian.net, I often try to 
emotionally prepare the uploaders for an extended wait. The last few 
times I did, their packages were accepted in unstable within 24 hours, 
that's really fantastic!



I'm only a DM and I tried to apply for FTP assistant but got
nothing in reply from ftp-master. Now what I can do is just
repeating this topic again and urge for a solution.


I have not seen any applause in this thread for your offer to help.  I
hereby do this and thank you explicitly.  I have learned that e-mails 
to

ftp-master work way worse than IRC via #debian-ftp.  May be you repeat
your offer there.

I personally admit that getting no response to e-mails is more draining
on the patience than waiting for getting a package acceptet.  Thus
knowing this alternative channel helped me a lot.


I had a similar experience. It didn't help that the one ftp-master 
member made a comment about laughing off requests to join the ftp team. 
If they didn't want my help I'd rather get a "sorry, we don't think 
you're experienced enough yet" rather than just nothing.


-Jonathan

--
  ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀  Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) 
  ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  Debian Developer - https://wiki.debian.org/highvoltage
  ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋   https://debian.org | https://jonathancarter.org
  ⠈⠳⣄  xmpp:j...@debian.org ring:highvoltage

Re: Urging for solution to the slow NEW queue process

[Andreas Tille]

Dear Lumin,

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 07:08:21AM +, Lumin wrote:
> Briefly speaking, if a DD was told that "Thank you for your contribution
> to Debian but please wait for at least 2 months so that your package
> can enter the archive.", will the DD still be motivated working on NEW
> packages??? Please convince me if you think that doesn't matter.

The fact that the NEW queue is continuely growing is a sign that DDs are
continuosely motivated to fill it up. ;-)  As Mattia said in his
response patience is a feature you learn as DD and it is not a bad
feature.
 
> I'm only a DM and I tried to apply for FTP assistant but got
> nothing in reply from ftp-master. Now what I can do is just
> repeating this topic again and urge for a solution.

I have not seen any applause in this thread for your offer to help.  I
hereby do this and thank you explicitly.  I have learned that e-mails to
ftp-master work way worse than IRC via #debian-ftp.  May be you repeat
your offer there.

I personally admit that getting no response to e-mails is more draining
on the patience than waiting for getting a package acceptet.  Thus
knowing this alternative channel helped me a lot.

Kind regards

  Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de

Re: Urging for solution to the slow NEW queue process (completeed)

[Geert Stappers]

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 01:21:10PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Gert Wollny writes ("Re: Urging for solution to the slow NEW queue process 
> (completeed)"):
> > I might add that in case of the package I was talking about there vtk7,
> >  I got another reject because I used the same version for the re-
> > upload, and after that long time it was assumed that the comments that
> > were already stored in the ftp-masters data base refereed to this
> > upload (*).
> 
> Oops.  Thank you for providing ammunition for my position (as
> discussed in another thread here on -devel) that reusing version
> numbers for different contents is a bad idea, even when the previous
> versioni was not accepted into the Debian archive but merely shared
> with (for example) reviewers or ftpmasters.
> 
> > However, after pointing this out to Chris Lamb and re-
> > uploading the package another time he checked and accepted it in less
> > then 24 hours (big thanks again).
> 
> It strikes me that if there were comments in the ftpmaster database
> suggestiong the package should be rejected, the package ought to have
> been rejected, rather than languishing in a queue.  That would have
> brought the confusion to light right away.
 
+1


> But maybe I don't understand the process.
 
+1


> > *) I wonder if and how this data base is actually accessible for non-
> > ftp members?
> 
> I see little reason why it shouldn't be.  DYK if it is in the same
> postgresql instance ?  We already mirror the main archive db to
> somewhere dd's can read it.
> 

The graphs at https://ftp-master.debian.org/stat.html
show only the total in the queue.

Five uploads and four being processed, results in an increase by one.

People outside the FTP-team see only that increase.

I think it would good if processed packages would also be graphed / plotted.


Groeten
Geert Stappers
-- 
Leven en laten leven

Re: Urging for solution to the slow NEW queue process (completeed)

[Ian Jackson]

Gert Wollny writes ("Re: Urging for solution to the slow NEW queue process 
(completeed)"):
> I might add that in case of the package I was talking about there vtk7,
>  I got another reject because I used the same version for the re-
> upload, and after that long time it was assumed that the comments that
> were already stored in the ftp-masters data base refereed to this
> upload (*).

Oops.  Thank you for providing ammunition for my position (as
discussed in another thread here on -devel) that reusing version
numbers for different contents is a bad idea, even when the previous
versioni was not accepted into the Debian archive but merely shared
with (for example) reviewers or ftpmasters.

> However, after pointing this out to Chris Lamb and re-
> uploading the package another time he checked and accepted it in less
> then 24 hours (big thanks again).

It strikes me that if there were comments in the ftpmaster database
suggestiong the package should be rejected, the package ought to have
been rejected, rather than languishing in a queue.  That would have
brought the confusion to light right away.

But maybe I don't understand the process.

> *) I wonder if and how this data base is actually accessible for non-
> ftp members?

I see little reason why it shouldn't be.  DYK if it is in the same
postgresql instance ?  We already mirror the main archive db to
somewhere dd's can read it.

Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

Re: Urging for solution to the slow NEW queue process (completeed)

[Gert Wollny]

Sorry, hit the wrong button and the email went out incomplete, if yo
read the other mail you can skip to (--). 

Am Mittwoch, den 11.04.2018, 13:51 +0200 schrieb Gert Wollny:
> Am Mittwoch, den 11.04.2018, 07:08 + schrieb Lumin:
> > Hi folks,
> > 
> > I'm sorry for repeating this topic in -devel without reading all
> > the
> > followups in this thread [1] which seems to be dying. Is there
> > any conclusion in the thread[1] ?
> 

As the initator of this thread I'd like to chime in. My main point of
this thread was about what could be done to make the NEW process a bit
more transparent. 

One conclusion was that for new packages that close ITPs one could add
some code to dak that would append the reasons for rejections to the
ITP. Looking at the code I realized that for someone not familiar with
the code base it is not simple to add this, and the DD who pointed me
at this and is amongst the authors of dak couldn't give me helpful
pointers how this could be implemented, so for now this is stalled, but
it is still on my mind. 

The second part, asking others to give additional reviews to the
package before the first upload, and document these in a bug report and
the changelog one can simply do. 

(--)

In any case my issue was not so much with a first upload taking a long
time, but that a re-upload of an already reviewed package waited in the
pipeline for a long time, even though it already got a thorough review
by ftp-master. In fact, I completely understand if a complex package
takes some more time in NEW when uploaded for the first time. 

I might add that in case of the package I was talking about there vtk7,
 I got another reject because I used the same version for the re-
upload, and after that long time it was assumed that the comments that
were already stored in the ftp-masters data base refereed to this
upload (*). However, after pointing this out to Chris Lamb and re-
uploading the package another time he checked and accepted it in less
then 24 hours (big thanks again).

At this point I might add that there should probably be some policy how
to version re-uploads after a non-automatic ftp-reject. The discussion
whether one should change or keep the version number is also not
conclusive, but after what happened to vtk7 I personally  will now
always increment the version after an ftp-reject, but without adding a
new changelog entry. 

*) I wonder if and how this data base is actually accessible for non-
ftp members?

Best, 
Gert

Re: Urging for solution to the slow NEW queue process

[Gert Wollny]

Am Mittwoch, den 11.04.2018, 07:08 + schrieb Lumin:
> Hi folks,
> 
> I'm sorry for repeating this topic in -devel without reading all the
> followups in this thread [1] which seems to be dying. Is there
> any conclusion in the thread[1] ?

As the initator of this thread I'd like to chime in. My main point of
this thread was about what could be done to make the NEW process a bit
more transparent. 

One conclusion was that for new packages that close ITPs one could add
some code to dak that would append the reasons for rejections to the
ITP. Looking at the code I realized that for someone not familiar with
the code base it is not simple to add this, and the DD who pointed me
at this and is amongst the authors of dak couldn't give me helpful
pointers how this could be implemented, so for now this is stalled, but
it is still on my mind. 

The second part, asking others to give additional reviews to the
package before the first upload, and document these in a bug report and
the changelog one can simply do. 

In any case my issue was not so much with a first upload taking a long
time, but that a re-upload of an already reviewed package waited in thepipeline 
for a long time, even though  


> 
> Briefly speaking, if a DD was told that "Thank you for your
> contribution
> to Debian but please wait for at least 2 months so that your package
> can enter the archive.", will the DD still be motivated working on
> NEW
> packages??? Please convince me if you think that doesn't matter.
> 
> Let's have a look a this chart[2]. Obviously the NEW queue became
> somewhat weirdly long since about a year ago. We can also move
> to the middle part of this page[3] where we can estimate a median
> number of time for a package to wait in the NEW queue. The median is
> **2 month**. Things has been going in the BAD direction compared
> to the past.
> 
> I'm only a DM and I tried to apply for FTP assistant but got
> nothing in reply from ftp-master. Now what I can do is just
> repeating this topic again and urge for a solution.
> 
> Sorry for any inconvenience.
> 
> Best,
> lumin
> 
> [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2018/03/msg00064.html
> [2] https://ftp-master.debian.org/stat/new-5years.png
> [3] https://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html
> 

Re: Urging for solution to the slow NEW queue process

[Steve Cotton]

>Looking at the oldest item in the queue (node-mimelib, 7 months), I see
>that the upstream README[1] was changed on Mar 11th to read:
>
>  NB! This project is deprecated
>
>All users of this project are urged to find an alternative as it is not
>maintained anymore.
>
>Obviously, this is nothing to do with whatever caused it to become
>stuck
>in NEW,
Given that the ITP itself says "This is a deprecated lib. Please read 
README.Debian to find a new lib for you.", I suspect it does have something to 
do with it.

Lumin, as you've already asked the FTP team how to volunteer, why not go 
through the ITP bugs for the stuck packages and see if there are obvious 
questions to ask?

BR,
Steve

Re: Urging for solution to the slow NEW queue process

[Wookey]

On 2018-04-11 10:54 +0200, Philip Hands wrote:
> 
> If one excludes the node packages, the current state of NEW looks rather
> good.  It suggests[2] that the average wait for non-node packages is
> about a fortnight.
> 
> This is something for which I think we should be congratulating the
> ftp-masters.

I've put in a few NEW packages recently and I have to say the
processing time currently appears to be the fastest it's ever been in
my 18 years with Debian. 'A few days' is what I've been seeing
typically, and in one case 'about 24 hours'.

Clearly there is an issue with ~150 node packages hanging around for
2-3 months, and I don't know what that's about, but outside that area
I can only say that I find the team to be doing an excellent job.

Slow NEW processing can be frustrating - mostly because you don't know
if it'll be 2 days or 2 months, but on the whole, since a quite bad
period a few years ago, I think we've been doing well. 

I reckon that 'more than a month' is when it gets tiresome, although
for difficult/large/controversial packages longer than that may well
be reasonable.

Also, not only do the ftp-masters generally respond quickly - they
also do a thorough job. Twice in the last year I have had things I
missed pointed out, which is excellent - that's the whole point of the
process, and I strive to do better in future. 

So yes, thanks FTP-masters - I really do appreciate your
(never-ending!) work.

Wookey
-- 
Principal hats:  Linaro, Debian, Wookware, ARM
http://wookware.org/


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Urging for solution to the slow NEW queue process

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 11:50:22AM +0200, Xavier wrote:
> > If one excludes the node packages, the current state of NEW looks rather
> > good.  It suggests[2] that the average wait for non-node packages is
> > about a fortnight.
> Fortnight is the average of existing package in queue, not average time
> to enter in unstable (~ 1 month or more)
How so?

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Urging for solution to the slow NEW queue process

[Ian Campbell]

On Wed, 2018-04-11 at 07:08 +, Lumin wrote:
> [2] https://ftp-master.debian.org/stat/new-5years.png

Does this graph show the length of the NEW queue over time or the
numbers of packages passing through NEW over time?

Ian.

Re: Urging for solution to the slow NEW queue process

[Xavier]

Le 11/04/2018 à 10:54, Philip Hands a écrit :
> Andrey Rahmatullin  writes:
> 
>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 07:08:21AM +, Lumin wrote:
>>> Briefly speaking, if a DD was told that "Thank you for your contribution
>>> to Debian but please wait for at least 2 months so that your package
>>> can enter the archive.", will the DD still be motivated working on NEW
>>> packages??? Please convince me if you think that doesn't matter.
>> But most DDs already know about this?
>>
>>> Let's have a look a this chart[2]. Obviously the NEW queue became
>>> somewhat weirdly long since about a year ago. We can also move
>>> to the middle part of this page[3] where we can estimate a median
>>> number of time for a package to wait in the NEW queue. The median is
>>> **2 month**. Things has been going in the BAD direction compared
>>> to the past.
>> There are 287 packages on that page.
>> 154 of them have "node-" in the name.
> 
> Of the packages that have been in the queue for more than 3 months, only
> 3 are not node packages.
> 
> Looking at the oldest item in the queue (node-mimelib, 7 months), I see
> that the upstream README[1] was changed on Mar 11th to read:
> 
>   NB! This project is deprecated
> 
>   All users of this project are urged to find an alternative as it is not 
> maintained anymore.
> 
> Obviously, this is nothing to do with whatever caused it to become stuck
> in NEW, but it strikes me as symptomatic of the state of the node
> ecosystem, which hardly makes things easy for those packaging node
> packages, nor for the ftp-masters.
> 
> If one excludes the node packages, the current state of NEW looks rather
> good.  It suggests[2] that the average wait for non-node packages is
> about a fortnight.

Hello,

Fortnight is the average of existing package in queue, not average time
to enter in unstable (~ 1 month or more)

Re: Urging for solution to the slow NEW queue process

[Paolo Greppi]

Il 11/04/2018 09:44, Andrey Rahmatullin ha scritto:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 07:08:21AM +, Lumin wrote:
>> Briefly speaking, if a DD was told that "Thank you for your contribution
>> to Debian but please wait for at least 2 months so that your package
>> can enter the archive.", will the DD still be motivated working on NEW
>> packages??? Please convince me if you think that doesn't matter.
> But most DDs already know about this?
> 
>> Let's have a look a this chart[2]. Obviously the NEW queue became
>> somewhat weirdly long since about a year ago. We can also move
>> to the middle part of this page[3] where we can estimate a median
>> number of time for a package to wait in the NEW queue. The median is
>> **2 month**. Things has been going in the BAD direction compared
>> to the past.
> There are 287 packages on that page.
> 154 of them have "node-" in the name.
> 

Thank you for pointing out !

The pkg-javascript team is working hard to bring to Debian or keep within 
Debian useful tools such as gitlab, etherpad, buildbot 1.x and signal-desktop 
(that's an electron app).

Here I only listed stuff that is already worked on.
More useful stuff keeps coming out from the javascript ecosystem, the latest 
that I stumbled upon is scuttlebutt referenced here:
http://joeyh.name/blog/entry/extending_Scuttlebutt_with_Annah/

The number of tiny node-* packages required is indeed staggering.

Paolo

Re: Urging for solution to the slow NEW queue process

[Mattia Rizzolo]

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:54:11AM +0200, Philip Hands wrote:
> Andrey Rahmatullin  writes:
> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 07:08:21AM +, Lumin wrote:
> >> Briefly speaking, if a DD was told that "Thank you for your contribution
> >> to Debian but please wait for at least 2 months so that your package
> >> can enter the archive.", will the DD still be motivated working on NEW
> >> packages??? Please convince me if you think that doesn't matter.
> > But most DDs already know about this?
> 
> If one excludes the node packages, the current state of NEW looks rather
> good.  It suggests[2] that the average wait for non-node packages is
> about a fortnight.

Besides, seriously, two months to wait for a review is hardly much in a
context like Debian…

I spent all the time before becoming DD only hearing about how Debian is
all about waiting for something/somebody, and I came to the point it
actually helped me becoming a much patient person, which is only for the
better.

> This is something for which I think we should be congratulating the
> ftp-masters.

Yes!

-- 
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540  .''`.
more about me:  https://mapreri.org : :'  :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri  `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Urging for solution to the slow NEW queue process

[Philip Hands]

Andrey Rahmatullin  writes:

> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 07:08:21AM +, Lumin wrote:
>> Briefly speaking, if a DD was told that "Thank you for your contribution
>> to Debian but please wait for at least 2 months so that your package
>> can enter the archive.", will the DD still be motivated working on NEW
>> packages??? Please convince me if you think that doesn't matter.
> But most DDs already know about this?
>
>> Let's have a look a this chart[2]. Obviously the NEW queue became
>> somewhat weirdly long since about a year ago. We can also move
>> to the middle part of this page[3] where we can estimate a median
>> number of time for a package to wait in the NEW queue. The median is
>> **2 month**. Things has been going in the BAD direction compared
>> to the past.
> There are 287 packages on that page.
> 154 of them have "node-" in the name.

Of the packages that have been in the queue for more than 3 months, only
3 are not node packages.

Looking at the oldest item in the queue (node-mimelib, 7 months), I see
that the upstream README[1] was changed on Mar 11th to read:

  NB! This project is deprecated

  All users of this project are urged to find an alternative as it is not 
maintained anymore.

Obviously, this is nothing to do with whatever caused it to become stuck
in NEW, but it strikes me as symptomatic of the state of the node
ecosystem, which hardly makes things easy for those packaging node
packages, nor for the ftp-masters.

If one excludes the node packages, the current state of NEW looks rather
good.  It suggests[2] that the average wait for non-node packages is
about a fortnight.

This is something for which I think we should be congratulating the
ftp-masters.

Cheers, Phil.

[1] https://github.com/andris9/mimelib
[2] of course, if hundreds of packages were whizzing through in under an
hour, that would not be visible by glancing at the NEW queue, so the
queue doesn't give a full picture.
-- 
|)|  Philip Hands  [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]  HANDS.COM Ltd.
|-|  http://www.hands.com/http://ftp.uk.debian.org/
|(|  Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34,   21075 Hamburg,GERMANY


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Urging for solution to the slow NEW queue process

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 07:08:21AM +, Lumin wrote:
> Briefly speaking, if a DD was told that "Thank you for your contribution
> to Debian but please wait for at least 2 months so that your package
> can enter the archive.", will the DD still be motivated working on NEW
> packages??? Please convince me if you think that doesn't matter.
But most DDs already know about this?

> Let's have a look a this chart[2]. Obviously the NEW queue became
> somewhat weirdly long since about a year ago. We can also move
> to the middle part of this page[3] where we can estimate a median
> number of time for a package to wait in the NEW queue. The median is
> **2 month**. Things has been going in the BAD direction compared
> to the past.
There are 287 packages on that page.
154 of them have "node-" in the name.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Urging for solution to the slow NEW queue process

[Lumin]

Hi folks,

I'm sorry for repeating this topic in -devel without reading all the
followups in this thread [1] which seems to be dying. Is there
any conclusion in the thread[1] ?

Briefly speaking, if a DD was told that "Thank you for your contribution
to Debian but please wait for at least 2 months so that your package
can enter the archive.", will the DD still be motivated working on NEW
packages??? Please convince me if you think that doesn't matter.

Let's have a look a this chart[2]. Obviously the NEW queue became
somewhat weirdly long since about a year ago. We can also move
to the middle part of this page[3] where we can estimate a median
number of time for a package to wait in the NEW queue. The median is
**2 month**. Things has been going in the BAD direction compared
to the past.

I'm only a DM and I tried to apply for FTP assistant but got
nothing in reply from ftp-master. Now what I can do is just
repeating this topic again and urge for a solution.

Sorry for any inconvenience.

Best,
lumin

[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2018/03/msg00064.html
[2] https://ftp-master.debian.org/stat/new-5years.png
[3] https://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html

-- 
Best,