Hello, On Fri 07 Mar 2025 at 10:11am GMT, Simon McVittie wrote:
> If the public NEW-queue viewer at https://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html > is an accurate reflection of the files that the ftp team would look at > first in their internal processes, then the top changelog entry (but only > the top changelog entry, and not later ones), debian/README.source, or > the copyright file itself would be the places to put evidence supporting > the copyright file being correct. Just to note that this order is not the order in which they get presented to us. Instead, there's some logic in 'dak process-new' to try to sort them helpfully. It's got some issues, like if a package has a note attached to it then it gets sorted last, the idea being that the person who left the note hopefully will get prompted to look at it again in response to an e-mail from the uploader. That causes things to get stuck at the bottom for ages, though. There's command line options to change the order a bit; I think basically we can choose whether or not binNEW packages get sorted first. I have that turned off in my shell aliases; I don't know about other team members. > A change history of problems that were reported and fixed doesn't seem > like something that would speed up the ftp team's work: if they feel that > they have to review a change history *in addition* to reviewing the uploaded > artifacts, I don't see how that would take a shorter time than only > reviewing the uploaded artifacts. The only way this could help is if the > ftp team were willing to trust the information from peer review and do > a less in-depth review of packages that have had a positive peer review, > but I have not seen any indication from the ftp team that they would be > prepared to do that. Yes. > So I think it could be better to frame this in terms of finding a good > place to put supporting evidence ("I know the licensing situation > in contrib/foo/ looks strange at first glance, but in fact it's OK > because..."), rather than somewhere to put a change history of previous > negative feedback being addressed. The ftp team don't need to know about > the existence of previous, wrong packages, they are only approving or > rejecting the hopefully-correct final package that has been submitted > for their review. Comments in d/copyright or d/changelog help. -- Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
