Re: Growing new FTP-masters (Re: Bits from DPL)

Hello, On Sun 09 Mar 2025 at 01:57pm GMT, Simon McVittie wrote: > Do I assume correctly that this principle can be weakened for > experimental-NEW? > > As a general principle I think uploads to NEW that are more complicated than a > completely new leaf package should usually be to experimental, u

Re: STFU please (Re: Bits from DPL)

On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 02:54:32PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote: > On 3/6/25 2:09 PM, Holger Levsen wrote: > > so if the/a team says they cannot handle new members right now and thus > > there should be no big announcement asking for new members, I very much > > think this should be respected and no

Re: NEW review & revision process (or lack thereof) (Re: Growing new FTP-masters (Re: Bits from DPL))

I've recently been trying to help rescue a package that is dropped for Trixie, partly for technical reasons (source package split means a round trip through NEW) and party for license reasons (some uncertainty about copyright of some icons, which have been in the archive for decades, but since

Re: Revisiting the idea of pre-NEW peer review? (Re: Bits from DPL)

On Fri, 2025-03-07 at 09:51 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > > I have prepared a stub for a "Gateway to NEW" on Salsa: > > > > https://salsa.debian.org/newgateway-team Le Sun, Mar 09, 2025 at 06:00:55PM +0800, Maytham Alsudany a écrit : > Am I correct in assuming that each package to be reviewed

Re: Revisiting the idea of pre-NEW peer review? (Re: Bits from DPL)

Hi all, Following Maytham and Simon's feedback, I now propose a workflow that is purely based on issues. The default template is a checklist to guide the reviews. (please bear in mind

Re: Revisiting the idea of pre-NEW peer review? (Re: Bits from DPL)

Maytham Alsudany writes: >> 2. The package maintainer opens an issue with _Review_ template (shall we >> just make it default?). Salsa ID pings in the issue can be useful for >> exchanging reviews. >> >> 3. Once the checklist is clear, the maintainer uses the create merge >> requ

Re: Revisiting the idea of pre-NEW peer review? (Re: Bits from DPL)

On Wed, 2025-03-12 at 09:52 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > I have just drafted a workflow in > > https://salsa.debian.org/newgateway-team/reviews#how-to-request-or-make-a-review > > which I quote here: > > 0. (We are in pilot phases. Improvements of this workflow are welcome) > > 1. The p

Re: Revisiting the idea of pre-NEW peer review? (Re: Bits from DPL)

Le Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 04:39:00PM +0100, Simon Josefsson a écrit : > > Could you explain how I would ask for review of a package? I re-read > this thread, and the newgateway-team homepages, but I still don't > understand how you think the process should work. > > Could we test the process by re

Re: Revisiting the idea of pre-NEW peer review? (Re: Bits from DPL)

> On Thu 06 Mar 2025 at 01:21pm +09, Charles Plessy wrote: > > > Around 12 years ago, I proposed a peer-review system to increase the > > quality of > > the packages in the NEW queue. https://wiki.debian.org/CopyrightReview Le Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 05:41:14PM +0800, Sean Whitton a écrit : > > I

Re: Bits from DPL

Hello, Sean Whitton wrote on 06/03/2025 at 02:01:13+0100: > Hello, > > On Wed 05 Mar 2025 at 11:35pm +0530, Nilesh Patra wrote: > >> Do you mind clarifying why that's the case, unless the reason is truly >> personal or undisclosable? > > It's pretty simple -- there is no-one with the free time t

Re: Processing times for the NEW queue (was Re: Bits from DPL)

On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 11:19:52AM +0100, Timo Röhling wrote: > I'm not an FTP Team member, but I happen to have analyzed exactly this > question in detail [1]. The FTP team is very transparent in this regard and > provides all processing logs, so any DD can verify this for themselves. Thank you f

Re: Revisiting the idea of pre-NEW peer review? (Re: Bits from DPL)

Charles Plessy writes: > On Fri, 2025-03-07 at 09:51 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > >> > I have prepared a stub for a "Gateway to NEW" on Salsa: >> > >> > https://salsa.debian.org/newgateway-team > > Le Sun, Mar 09, 2025 at 06:00:55PM +0800, Maytham Alsudany a écrit : > >> Am I correct in assu

Re: Processing times for the NEW queue (was Re: Bits from DPL)

Hi, * Pirate Praveen [2025-03-11 18:52]: I think in previous discussions, it was suggested to pay for a proper legal opinion, may be from SFC or SFLC. I think this would be a good use of Debian's money. With a proper legal opinion, we will be in a much better position to evaluate changes to

Re: Processing times for the NEW queue (was Re: Bits from DPL)

On 2025-03-11 18:52:07 +0530 (+0530), Pirate Praveen wrote: [...] I think in previous discussions, it was suggested to pay for a proper legal opinion, may be from SFC or SFLC. I think this would be a good use of Debian's money. With a proper legal opinion, we will be in a much better position

Re: Processing times for the NEW queue (was Re: Bits from DPL)

On 3/11/25 6:18 PM, Wookey wrote: Do we still even _need_ to pre-review the archive the same way we have been for 30 years? Could not post-review when actual problems are noted be sufficient (given that much of the rest of the ecosystem seems to manage this, although a lot of that is source rathe

Re: Processing times for the NEW queue (was Re: Bits from DPL)

On 2025-03-06 15:45 +0200, Faidon Liambotis wrote: Your question perhaps incorporates an underlying assumption that "two days", or "[less] than three or four weeks" is not slow. I'd like to challenge this assumption. I can ship code from a VCS host, for free, in a few seconds. Heck, I can eve

Re: NEW review & revision process (or lack thereof) (Re: Growing new FTP-masters (Re: Bits from DPL))

Luke Faraone writes: > The rationale given when I joined as ftpassistant (c. 2012) for not > publicising decisions e.g. in the ITP was to avoid publishing > potentially harshly-worded and embarassing reviews to maintainers in > public (like pointing out that you missed a fairly obvious license

Re: Revisiting the idea of pre-NEW peer review? (Re: Bits from DPL)

Sean Whitton writes: > Hello Charles, > > Thanks. Please put prominent links to these three places: > > - Policy 2.3 -- this covers 90% of my NEW rejects > > Based on my experience processing NEW, a lot of DDs don't seem to > really have an understanding of the requirements explained here. >

Re: NEW review & revision process (or lack thereof) (Re: Growing new FTP-masters (Re: Bits from DPL))

Luke Faraone writes: > The rationale given when I joined as ftpassistant (c. 2012) for not > publicising decisions e.g. in the ITP was to avoid publishing > potentially harshly-worded and embarassing reviews to maintainers in > public (like pointing out that you missed a fairly obvious license >

NEW review & revision process (or lack thereof) (Re: Growing new FTP-masters (Re: Bits from DPL))

On 06/03/2025 04:54, Matthias Urlichs wrote: Finally, a question -- as you don't seem to document the issues you have with long term packages in their ITP bug, where *do* you document them? There is no built-in issue tracking in `dak`. The "notes" function is only available while the package i

Re: Growing new FTP-masters (Re: Bits from DPL)

Hello, On Sun 09 Mar 2025 at 12:17pm +01, Simon Josefsson wrote: > Sean Whitton writes: > >> The docs are public: https://salsa.debian.org/ftp-team/manpages > > Those are helpful even for me as uploading packages to NEW! I wish I > had read them before. Mmm. They sat private access only for t

Re: Growing new FTP-masters (Re: Bits from DPL)

On Sun, 09 Mar 2025 at 19:32:32 +0800, Sean Whitton wrote: IMO it is the maintainer's responsibility to ensure that NEW+unstable together is always all installable, if you see what I mean. Do I assume correctly that this principle can be weakened for experimental-NEW? As a general principle

Re: Growing new FTP-masters (Re: Bits from DPL)

Hello, On Sun 09 Mar 2025 at 12:38pm +01, Simon Josefsson wrote: > What should I do if NEW+unstable becomes uninstallable during the NEW > review period? > > Do you want maintainers to re-upload a newly built binary? I've never > done that, but doing so would make sense if you really want mainta

Re: Growing new FTP-masters (Re: Bits from DPL)

At 2025-03-09T19:32:32+0800, Sean Whitton wrote: > On Sun 09 Mar 2025 at 12:17pm +01, Simon Josefsson wrote: > > Sean Whitton writes: > >> The docs are public: https://salsa.debian.org/ftp-team/manpages > > Those are helpful even for me as uploading packages to NEW! I wish > > I had read them bef

Re: Growing new FTP-masters (Re: Bits from DPL)

Sean Whitton writes: > Hello, > > On Sun 09 Mar 2025 at 12:17pm +01, Simon Josefsson wrote: > >> Sean Whitton writes: >> >>> The docs are public: https://salsa.debian.org/ftp-team/manpages >> >> Those are helpful even for me as uploading packages to NEW! I wish I >> had read them before. > > Mm

Re: Growing new FTP-masters (Re: Bits from DPL)

Sean Whitton writes: >> My personal suggestion would be to work with one or two volunteers to write a >> somewhat-comprehensive how-to-ftpmaster-the-NEW-queue manual, so that the >> *next* time you have a bottleneck you can throw that document at the >> volunteer >> and say "here's ten example p

Re: Processing times for the NEW queue (was Re: Bits from DPL)

Hi, Le 2025-03-09 06:08, Sean Whitton a écrit : Just to note that per the FTP team docs[1] we perform a full copyright and license review even if it's just a SONAME bump. I do not think we should be doing this, but it's the team policy. It makes sense in a way, as it makes the process more c

Re: Processing times for the NEW queue (was Re: Bits from DPL)

Hi, Thank you Timo for these statistics. Le 2025-03-09 00:17, Timo Röhling a écrit : from September 2012 [1] until January 2025: Over that period we get a 15.3% reject rate (nearly 1 in 6) for non-binNEW (6.6% for binNew, about 1 in 16) which is significant. The fact that the decision delay

Re: Revisiting the idea of pre-NEW peer review? (Re: Bits from DPL)

On Fri, 2025-03-07 at 09:51 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > > I have prepared a stub for a "Gateway to NEW" on Salsa: > > https://salsa.debian.org/newgateway-team I've got a couple of questions: Am I correct in assuming that each package to be reviewed will be an issue under the "reviews" repo (

Re: Growing new FTP-masters (Re: Bits from DPL)

Hello, On Thu 06 Mar 2025 at 01:54pm +01, Matthias Urlichs wrote: > * I have learned (thanks @roehling) that the *actual* median time packages > spend in NEW is less than two days. In other words, *somebody* must have > *some* time available. It is almost entirely Thorsten. > My personal sug

Re: Revisiting the idea of pre-NEW peer review? (Re: Bits from DPL)

Hello Charles, Thanks. Please put prominent links to these three places: - Policy 2.3 -- this covers 90% of my NEW rejects Based on my experience processing NEW, a lot of DDs don't seem to really have an understanding of the requirements explained here. Including me, before I joined the f

Re: Revisiting the idea of pre-NEW peer review? (Re: Bits from DPL)

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

Re: Processing times for the NEW queue (was Re: Bits from DPL)

Hello, Thank you, Timo, for all the info. I think you're quite right about the psychological impacts and the comparison with the level crossing is apt. -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: Processing times for the NEW queue (was Re: Bits from DPL)

Hello, On Fri 07 Mar 2025 at 06:17pm +01, Simon Josefsson wrote: > Your graph and statistics on this is great, thank you! > > Timo Röhling writes: > >> 2. Source packages going through NEW merely because they introduce new >> binary packages are typically processed faster than completely new >>

Re: Processing times for the NEW queue (was Re: Bits from DPL)

Hi Simon, * Simon Josefsson [2025-03-07 18:17]: Is it possible from your data sources to filter these two cases apart? It is not explicitly recorded, but I can deduce it from the data, as I have the name of the .changes file and can take everything before the first underscore (_) as source pa

Re: Revisiting the idea of pre-NEW peer review? (Re: Bits from DPL)

Charles Plessy writes: >>I suggest to use 'lrc' in the pipeline. I already do this for many >>packages, and I just add >> >>- >>https://salsa.debian.org/debian/licenserecon/raw/main/debian/licenserecon.yml > > Looks good! > >>Yes, false positives happens, and it doesn't always handle Autotools

Re: Revisiting the idea of pre-NEW peer review? (Re: Bits from DPL)

Le Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 06:21:53PM +0100, Simon Josefsson a écrit : Thanks for starting this -- could you re-enable Issues for the Pipelines project? Hi Simon, I have enabled the issues in all repository. It seems that Salsa's policy is to have them disabled by default. I suggest to use 'l

Re: STFU please (Re: Bits from DPL)

On Thursday, March 6, 2025 1:53:27 AM MST Marc Haber wrote: > On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 08:39:13AM +, Holger Levsen wrote: > >On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 08:58:48AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > >> Marc. I'll take my Popcorn with salt please. > > > >yeah, it's pretty funny to see a team burn out and hav

Re: Revisiting the idea of pre-NEW peer review? (Re: Bits from DPL)

Charles Plessy writes: > I have prepared a stub for a "Gateway to NEW" on Salsa: > > https://salsa.debian.org/newgateway-team > > I added `Debian` as a team member. > > I am under the impression that forking repositories will not be necessary: if > we provide CI pipeline packages like the salsa-c

Re: Processing times for the NEW queue (was Re: Bits from DPL)

Your graph and statistics on this is great, thank you! Timo Röhling writes: > 2. Source packages going through NEW merely because they introduce new > binary packages are typically processed faster than completely new > ones. Good point. Therefore, I think your graph gives a biased view for an

Re: Revisiting the idea of pre-NEW peer review? (Re: Bits from DPL)

How about adding a new header field in debian/copyright (https://dep-team.pages.debian.net/deps/dep5/) called something like "Reviews" which would be a list of URLs pointing to whatever public system was used to record a review? Then whoever reviews the debian/copyright file has easy access to rev

Re: Revisiting the idea of pre-NEW peer review? (Re: Bits from DPL)

On Fri, 07 Mar 2025 at 13:27:54 +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote: > On 7/3/25 12:29 AM, Otto Kekäläinen wrote: > > > Around 12 years ago, I proposed a peer-review system to increase the > > > quality of > > > the packages in the NEW queue. https://wiki.debian.org/CopyrightReview > > For packages that

Re: Growing new FTP-masters (Re: Bits from DPL)

On 05.03.25 19:51, Otto Kekäläinen wrote: With this experience I am surprised that one FTP-team member is saying that no help is needed? Apparently the problem isn't that no help is needed but that nobody has time to train the new help, citing possible burn-out trying to get answers from the

Re: Revisiting the idea of pre-NEW peer review? (Re: Bits from DPL)

On 7/3/25 12:29 AM, Otto Kekäläinen wrote: Hi! Around 12 years ago, I proposed a peer-review system to increase the quality of the packages in the NEW queue. https://wiki.debian.org/CopyrightReview For packages that I sponsor, I already do reviews of the debian/copyright and all other files

Re: Growing new FTP-masters (Re: Bits from DPL)

think you are quoting the DPL above correctly. I think he had good judgement, and raising awareness of FTP Masters team being spread thin and needing more help in a Bits from DPL announcement is the correct thing to do. New people standing up and stating they want to help is a good thing, even w

Re: Revisiting the idea of pre-NEW peer review? (Re: Bits from DPL)

Hi! > Around 12 years ago, I proposed a peer-review system to increase the quality > of > the packages in the NEW queue. https://wiki.debian.org/CopyrightReview For packages that I sponsor, I already do reviews of the debian/copyright and all other files. These are recorded as Merge Requests in

Re: Growing new FTP-masters (Re: Bits from DPL)

On 06.03.25 10:51, Sean Whitton wrote: You can't just throw people at a team of volunteers who are busy doing other things and say "train them". That's true in general. However. * this episode demonstrates that there are obviously a few crossed wires between ftpmaster and DPL; I think it's fa

Re: Revisiting the idea of pre-NEW peer review? (Re: Bits from DPL)

Charles Plessy writes: > Hi Sean and everybody, > > Around 12 years ago, I proposed a peer-review system to increase the quality > of > the packages in the NEW queue. https://wiki.debian.org/CopyrightReview > > Maybe we could revisit the idea along these lines: I like this idea, as an opt-in s

Processing times for the NEW queue (was Re: Bits from DPL)

Hi, * Matthias Urlichs [2025-03-05 23:00]: The NEW queue currently contains ~135 packages. The median wait time on the list(*) is three weeks, and the oldest packages have been, well, languishing, for nine months or so. (*) Yes I know that this may well be an inflated median: after all, the

Re: Revisiting the idea of pre-NEW peer review? (Re: Bits from DPL)

Hi, Le 2025-03-06 10:41, Sean Whitton a écrit : If someone wants to set this up in a way that doesn't increase ftp team workload but means packages have to be reject'd less often -- by all means. Do you have some stats or even just an estimate telling how often this happens, or is there an a

Re: Growing new FTP-masters (Re: Bits from DPL)

Hello, On Thu 06 Mar 2025 at 08:41am +01, Matthias Urlichs wrote: > Apparently the problem isn't that no help is needed but that nobody has time > to train the new help, citing possible burn-out trying to get answers from the > existing members and leaving in disappointment, if not disgust. (My >

Re: Revisiting the idea of pre-NEW peer review? (Re: Bits from DPL)

Hello, On Thu 06 Mar 2025 at 01:21pm +09, Charles Plessy wrote: > Hi Sean and everybody, > > Around 12 years ago, I proposed a peer-review system to increase the quality > of > the packages in the NEW queue. https://wiki.debian.org/CopyrightReview > > Maybe we could revisit the idea along these

Re: STFU please (Re: Bits from DPL)

On 3/6/25 2:09 PM, Holger Levsen wrote: so if the/a team says they cannot handle new members right now and thus there should be no big announcement asking for new members, I very much think this should be respected and not be ignored and spread on our most visible mailing list, where there pain

Re: Bits from DPL

On 06.03.25 08:58, Marc Haber wrote: I thank the DPL for putting this to public attention. Well OK but mayybe he should have handled this a bit more diplomatically. Or maybe he tried to, and failed to get traction. I assume he'll tell us presently, if only to reduce the popcorn-to-serious-dis

Re: STFU please (Re: Bits from DPL)

On 06.03.25 09:53, Marc Haber wrote: I apologize for trying to bring a smile into a heated discussion Thank you. -- -- regards -- -- Matthias Urlichs OpenPGP_signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: STFU please (Re: Bits from DPL)

On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 08:39:13AM +, Holger Levsen wrote: On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 08:58:48AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: Marc. I'll take my Popcorn with salt please. yeah, it's pretty funny to see a team burn out and have the same silly & salty discussion about this again and again. I apol

STFU please (Re: Bits from DPL)

On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 08:58:48AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > Marc. I'll take my Popcorn with salt please. yeah, it's pretty funny to see a team burn out and have the same silly & salty discussion about this again and again. or maybe not. also talking about how NEW is a bottleneck will be reall

Re: Bits from DPL

On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 09:01:13AM +0800, Sean Whitton wrote: On Wed 05 Mar 2025 at 11:35pm +0530, Nilesh Patra wrote: Do you mind clarifying why that's the case, unless the reason is truly personal or undisclosable? It's pretty simple -- there is no-one with the free time to train them right

Revisiting the idea of pre-NEW peer review? (Re: Bits from DPL)

Hi Sean and everybody, Around 12 years ago, I proposed a peer-review system to increase the quality of the packages in the NEW queue. https://wiki.debian.org/CopyrightReview Maybe we could revisit the idea along these lines: - a Salsa group into which people fork repos and run CI screens for c

Re: Bits from DPL

Hello, On Wed 05 Mar 2025 at 11:35pm +0530, Nilesh Patra wrote: > Do you mind clarifying why that's the case, unless the reason is truly > personal or undisclosable? It's pretty simple -- there is no-one with the free time to train them right now, in which case trainees will simply burn out, bec

Re: Bits from DPL

On 05.03.25 12:17, Sean Whitton wrote: Ftpmaster team is seeking for new team members == No, we are not. The NEW queue currently contains ~135 packages. The median wait time on the list(*) is three weeks, and the oldest packages have been, well, la

Re: Bits from DPL

On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 12:52 PM Sean Whitton wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > On Tue 04 Mar 2025 at 09:40am +01, Andreas Tille wrote: > > > Dear Debian community, > > > > this is bits from DPL for February. > > > > >

Growing new FTP-masters (Re: Bits from DPL)

Hi, On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 at 10:24, Nilesh Patra wrote: > On 05/03/25 4:47 pm, Sean Whitton wrote: > > On Tue 04 Mar 2025 at 09:40am +01, Andreas Tille wrote: > > > >> Dear Debian community, > >> > >> this is bits from DPL for February. > >> >

Re: Bits from DPL

On 05/03/25 4:47 pm, Sean Whitton wrote: > On Tue 04 Mar 2025 at 09:40am +01, Andreas Tille wrote: > >> Dear Debian community, >> >> this is bits from DPL for February. >> >> >> Ftpmaster team is seeking for new team members >> ==

useful subjects in replies to Bits mails (was Re: Bits from DPL)

I genuinely love that there is engagement with Andreas's "Bits from the DPL" mails, but, it would be lovely if people adjusted the Subject so we can differentiate sub-topics from each other. -- Please do not CC me for listmail. 👱🏻 Jonathan Dowland ✎j...@debian.org 🔗 https://

Re: Bits from DPL

unsubsribe Sean Whitton ezt írta (időpont: 2025. márc. 5., Sze, 12:17): > Hello everyone, > > On Tue 04 Mar 2025 at 09:40am +01, Andreas Tille wrote: > > > Dear Debian community, > > > > this is bits from DPL for February. > > > > > >

Re: Bits from DPL

unsubscribe Andreas Tille ezt írta (időpont: 2025. márc. 4., K, 9:41): > Dear Debian community, > > this is bits from DPL for February. > > > Ftpmaster team is seeking for new team members > == > > In December, Scott Kitterm

Re: Bits from DPL

> please be careful in your efforts to make contributing easier to not alienate > those who already contribute, sometimes for decades. also: it's rather easy to > kill motivation but very hard to revive it, once killed. The above got quoted in the latest LWN, so it may be a sign that the above vie

Re: Bits from DPL

Le Tue, Jan 07, 2025 at 10:46:25AM +1100, Stuart Prescott a écrit : > It's great to see more packages being maintained on salsa. I've certainly > noticed that it is making working on packages much simpler. > > > > In my campaign, I stated [os1] that I aimed to reduce the number of > > > packages m

Stats on packages not on Salsa (Was: Bits from DPL)

Hi Stuart, changing subject and suggest moving the topic to Debian QA list where it probably belongs. Am Thu, Jan 09, 2025 at 11:54:47AM +1100 schrieb Stuart Prescott: > Good point on anonscm as well... that really does blow out the numbers. Unfortunately yes. > However... some of them still w

Re: Bits from DPL

Hi Andreas Good point on anonscm as well... that really does blow out the numbers. However... some of them still work via the aliasing mechanism that was introduced at the time of migration to salsa. Duck used to check them all but I don't think it is running any more, unfortunately. vcswatch

Re: Bits from DPL

On Jan 8, 2025 18:07, Peter Pentchev wrote:. > I am mostly concerned with content that may be viewed as illegal, > in the context of "this was pulled in automatically, there was no > human being who initiated that action, so there is nobody but > the site admins to be held responsible".

Re: Bits from DPL / Feedback on attracting newcomers

> Well, "some places" includes basically all home users, at least in > Sweden where I live. This is not about ISPs blocking "some traffic", > they only block outgoing smtp traffic on default ports. The reasons are > obvious. > > That is, it's often a pain to set up outgoing SMTP. As a user you do

Re: Bits from DPL

Le 2025-01-08 18:07, Peter Pentchev a écrit : in the context of "this was pulled in automatically, there was no human being who initiated that action, so there is nobody but the site admins to be held responsible". Actually the chain of responsibility can be traced back to another human even i

Re: Bits from DPL

On Wed, Jan 08, 2025 at 02:59:16PM +, Luca Boccassi wrote: > On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 at 14:35, Peter Pentchev wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 08, 2025 at 10:19:34AM +0100, Julien Plissonneau Duquène wrote: > > > Le 2025-01-07 21:52, Peter Pentchev a écrit : > > > > > > > > Hm. That sounds interesting, b

Re: Bits from DPL

Le 2025-01-08 15:35, Peter Pentchev a écrit : Hm, I would be really, really surprised if there was even one "large platform" that did not shift the responsibility to the user by having them sign a terms of service document upon account registration. They don't make you sign anything, and most

Re: Bits from DPL

Hi Stuart, Am Wed, Jan 08, 2025 at 12:46:58PM +1100 schrieb Stuart Prescott: > > Lets think about some better fine tuning. "NOT LIKE '%salsa%'" might > > catch also Vcs URLs that are intentionally somewhere else. While I'd > > love to see all packages on Salsa, it might be sensible to start with

Re: Bits from DPL

On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 at 14:35, Peter Pentchev wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 08, 2025 at 10:19:34AM +0100, Julien Plissonneau Duquène wrote: > > Le 2025-01-07 21:52, Peter Pentchev a écrit : > > > > > > Hm. That sounds interesting, but I think the Debian project cannot > > > protect such a mirror from autom

Re: Bits from DPL

On Wed, Jan 08, 2025 at 10:19:34AM +0100, Julien Plissonneau Duquène wrote: > Le 2025-01-07 21:52, Peter Pentchev a écrit : > > > > Hm. That sounds interesting, but I think the Debian project cannot > > protect such a mirror from automatically bringing in non-DFSG content > > that appears in the r

Re: Bits from DPL

Le 2025-01-07 21:52, Peter Pentchev a écrit : Hm. That sounds interesting, but I think the Debian project cannot protect such a mirror from automatically bringing in non-DFSG content that appears in the remote repository. One might even take this one step further and go to content forbidden by

Re: Bits from DPL

Hi, > > > While I'd love to see all packages on Salsa > > > > I think that being able to host the primary git repository of packages > > elsewhere is a freedom worth maintaining for many reasons. > > No, I don't think this is a good idea, and at my first thought, I > personally don't see any pract

Re: Bits from DPL

> That's fair. I maintain a package of a project where I eventually > moved the upstream codebase into revision control but have been too > lazy/distracted to do the same for the debian directory (which I > realistically only update once every year or two). I'm committed to > importing that into Sa

Re: Bits from DPL

Hi Andreas Lets think about some better fine tuning. "NOT LIKE '%salsa%'" might catch also Vcs URLs that are intentionally somewhere else. While I'd love to see all packages on Salsa, it might be sensible to start with packages that are unintentionally not in Salsa so udd=> SELECT COUNT(DISTI

Re: Bits from DPL

On Tue, Jan 07, 2025 at 11:21:36PM +0100, tho...@goirand.fr wrote: > > I think that being able to host the primary git repository of packages > > elsewhere is a freedom worth maintaining for many reasons. same here. > I don't think we should continue to allow the "freedom" to be annoying for

Re: Bits from DPL

On 2025-01-07 23:21:36 +0100 (+0100), tho...@goirand.fr wrote: [...] > I don't think we should continue to allow the "freedom" to be > annoying for every other contributors. Even if there may be some > "technical excuses" to do so. That's fair. I maintain a package of a project where I eventually

Re: Bits from DPL

On Jan 7, 2025 21:25, Julien Plissonneau Duquène wrote: > I think that being able to host the primary git repository of packages > elsewhere is a freedom worth maintaining for many reasons. I don't think we should continue to allow the "freedom" to be annoying for every other contributors

Re: Bits from DPL

On 2025-01-07 21:24:54, Julien Plissonneau Duquène wrote: > Le 2025-01-07 20:03, Andreas Tille a écrit : > > While I'd love to see all packages on Salsa > > I think that being able to host the primary git repository of packages > elsewhere is a freedom worth maintaining for many reasons. No, I do

Re: Bits from DPL

On Tue, Jan 07, 2025 at 09:24:54PM +0100, Julien Plissonneau Duquène wrote: > Le 2025-01-07 20:03, Andreas Tille a écrit : > > While I'd love to see all packages on Salsa > > I think that being able to host the primary git repository of packages > elsewhere is a freedom worth maintaining for many

Re: Bits from DPL

Le 2025-01-07 20:03, Andreas Tille a écrit : While I'd love to see all packages on Salsa I think that being able to host the primary git repository of packages elsewhere is a freedom worth maintaining for many reasons. What the Debian Project could (and probably should) do in these cases is

Re: Bits from DPL

Am Tue, Jan 07, 2025 at 10:46:25AM +1100 schrieb Stuart Prescott: > Without seeking to rain on the parade, that query is only the packages that > list a non-salsa VCS. That's not counting the packages that don't list a VCS > at all and therefore are also maintained outside salsa: > > udd=> SELECT

Re: Bits from DPL

It's great to see more packages being maintained on salsa. I've certainly noticed that it is making working on packages much simpler. In my campaign, I stated [os1] that I aimed to reduce the number of packages maintained outside Salsa to below 2,000. As of March 28, 2024, the count was 2,368.

Re: Bits from DPL

Hi! > Number of packages not on Salsa > --- > > In my campaign, I stated [os1] that I aimed to reduce the number of > packages maintained outside Salsa to below 2,000. As of March 28, 2024, > the count was 2,368. As of this writing, the count stands at 1,928 > [os2], so

Re: Bits from DPL / Feedback on attracting newcomers

Hello, On Thu 12 Dec 2024 at 08:05pm -08, Don Armstrong wrote: > That said, the critique is received, and I've been very, very slowly > working on rewriting the entire system to address some of these issues. > [Being a parent has made my Debian time very precious, however, so > keeping things run

Re: Bits from DPL / Feedback on attracting newcomers

Hello, On Thu 12 Dec 2024 at 10:30pm +09, Charles Plessy wrote: > - at work, not using LLMs to write code is like refusing to wear shoes >at the Olympics because Greeks did not and saying that shoes pollute >and the run is no less fun when everybody agreed to be bare feet. >True, but

Re: Bits from DPL / Feedback on attracting newcomers

On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 09:06:48PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > reportbug can send emails through sendmail (if you have that > configured), or it can be set up so it can bypass that entirely and send > email directly to an SMTP server. If you use something like thunderbird, you can always do so

Re: Bits from DPL / Feedback on attracting newcomers

On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 05:50:55PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote: > > > On 12/11/24 5:20 PM, Marc Haber wrote: > > On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 17:04:52 +0530, Pirate Praveen > > wrote: > > > I think a reportbug web based front end that authenticates with salsa > > > via oauth and sends emails without any

A better bts? - https://fabre.debian.net (was: Re: Bits from DPL / Feedback on attracting newcomers)

Tiago Bortoletto Vaz writes: > Btw, for triage I used to suggest https://fabre.debian.net to > newcomers. I had some hope that it could be a start for something > bigger, so I tried to have access to the code to improve a few things > but never had an answer from the maintainer :\ This looks lik

Re: Barriers between packages and other people (Was: Bits from DPL)

Hi Matthias, Quoting Matthias Urlichs (2024-12-15 06:33:35) > On 12.12.24 12:48, Holger Levsen wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 08:57:57AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote: > >> On 04.12.24 18:08, Andreas Tille wrote: > >>> in the > >>> absence of a debian/dont_touch_my_package file, any Debian Dev

Re: Barriers between packages and other people (Was: Bits from DPL)

On 12.12.24 12:48, Holger Levsen wrote: On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 08:57:57AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote: On 04.12.24 18:08, Andreas Tille wrote: in the absence of a debian/dont_touch_my_package file, any Debian Developer is permitted to upload the package. I like this idea. so you like reali

Re: Bits from DPL / Feedback on attracting newcomers

On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 06:05:51PM GMT, Otto Kekäläinen wrote: > Hi, > > > > While I personally think e-mail-based workflows can be quite nice, the > > > BTS' asynchronous nature did cause me a lot of extra pointless work > > > when I was an outsider attempting to learn the ropes. Being not 100% >

  1   2   >