Hello,
On Fri 02 Sep 2022 at 12:31PM +01, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Sean Whitton writes ("Re: Comments on proposing NEW queue improvement (Re:
> Current NEW review process saps developer motivation"):
>> On Sat 27 Aug 2022 at 04:22PM +02, Vincent Bernat wrote:
>> > I
Sean Whitton writes ("Re: Comments on proposing NEW queue improvement (Re:
Current NEW review process saps developer motivation"):
> On Sat 27 Aug 2022 at 04:22PM +02, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> > It does not seem to work. Either people don't want to do that, either the
>
On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 00:15:27 -0400, Scott Kitterman
wrote:
>If I look at a package and determine it's only in New due to a new binary
>package name and that means the project has prohibited me from looking for
>other issues in the package until some time later when it's not in New, then I
On Mon, 2022-08-29 at 12:33 +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> May be we should be able to tag packages with in NEW into categories
> like this (similar to how a DD can give back a failed build via web
> interface). This may need to go through a GR. If we prioritize packages
> in NEW required for
Sean Whitton wrote on 27/08/2022 at 20:24:55+0200:
> [[PGP Signed Part:No public key for 695B7AE4BF066240 created at
> 2022-08-27T20:24:55+0200 using RSA]]
> Hello,
>
> On Sat 27 Aug 2022 at 04:22PM +02, Vincent Bernat wrote:
>
>>
>> On 2022-08-27 15:53, M. Zhou wrote:
>>
>>> That's why I still
On Mon, Aug 29 2022 at 12:33:44 PM +05:30:00 +05:30:00, Pirate Praveen
wrote:
On Sun, Aug 28 2022 at 07:39:12 AM +02:00:00 +02:00:00, Andreas Tille
wrote:
BTW, the vast amount of new packages I'm packaging are new
dependencies
for existing packages to get their new versions.
May be
On Sun, Aug 28 2022 at 07:39:12 AM +02:00:00 +02:00:00, Andreas Tille
wrote:
BTW, the vast amount of new packages I'm packaging are new
dependencies
for existing packages to get their new versions.
May be we should be able to tag packages with in NEW into categories
like this (similar
Scott Kitterman writes:
> If I look at a package and determine it's only in New due to a new
> binary package name and that means the project has prohibited me from
> looking for other issues in the package until some time later when it's
> not in New, then I feel pretty precisely like I'm
On Sunday, August 28, 2022 11:53:50 PM EDT Russ Allbery wrote:
> Scott Kitterman writes:
> > Sean Whitton wrote:
> >> I think we still want the binary package namespace checking?
> >>
> >> I.e., a GR just saying "ftpteam should not do a full
> >> licensing/copyright check for packages in
Scott Kitterman writes:
> Sean Whitton wrote:
>> I think we still want the binary package namespace checking?
>> I.e., a GR just saying "ftpteam should not do a full
>> licensing/copyright check for packages in binNEW".
>> Then no software changes are required.
> I think that a GR to
On August 28, 2022 8:58:24 PM UTC, Sean Whitton
wrote:
>Hello,
>
>On Sun 28 Aug 2022 at 07:45AM +02, Andreas Tille wrote:
>
>>
>> Am Sat, Aug 27, 2022 at 09:53:40AM -0400 schrieb M. Zhou:
>>> In my fuzzy memory, the last discussion on NEW queue improvement
>>> involves the disadvantages by
Hello,
On Sun 28 Aug 2022 at 07:45AM +02, Andreas Tille wrote:
>
> Am Sat, Aug 27, 2022 at 09:53:40AM -0400 schrieb M. Zhou:
>> In my fuzzy memory, the last discussion on NEW queue improvement
>> involves the disadvantages by allowing SOVERSION bump to directly
>> pass the NEW queue. I'm not
On Sat, Aug 27, 2022 at 09:50:41AM +0200, Gard Spreemann wrote:
> > Strong motivations such as "I use this package, seriously" are not
> > likely to wear out very easily through time. Packages maintained
> > with a strong motivation are better cared among all packages in our
> > archive.
>
> I
Am Sat, Aug 27, 2022 at 09:53:40AM -0400 schrieb M. Zhou:
> In my fuzzy memory, the last discussion on NEW queue improvement
> involves the disadvantages by allowing SOVERSION bump to directly
> pass the NEW queue. I'm not going to trace back, because I know
> this will not be implemented unless
Am Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 04:13:43PM -0400 schrieb M. Zhou:
> If one's enthusiasm on working on some package is eventually
> worn out after a break, then try to think of the following question:
>
> Is it really necessary to introduce XXX to Debian?
May be I'm repeating myself but having packages
"M. Zhou" writes:
> On Sat, 2022-08-27 at 09:50 +0200, Gard Spreemann wrote:
>>
>> I humbly disagree. Even from my own point of view, I may well be very
>> motivated to package something I use seriously all the time,
>> seriously. But then I see its dependency chain of 10 unpackaged
>> items,
Hello,
On Sat 27 Aug 2022 at 04:22PM +02, Vincent Bernat wrote:
>
> On 2022-08-27 15:53, M. Zhou wrote:
>
>> That's why I still hope ftp team to recruit more people. This is
>> a very direct and constructive way to speed up everything.
>> More volunteers = higher bandwidth.
>> Recruiting more
On 2022-08-27 15:53, M. Zhou wrote:
That's why I still hope ftp team to recruit more people. This is
a very direct and constructive way to speed up everything.
More volunteers = higher bandwidth.
Recruiting more people doesn't seem to have a serious disadvantage.
It does not seem to work.
On Sat, 2022-08-27 at 09:50 +0200, Gard Spreemann wrote:
>
> contributing work. In some sense, contributing to Debian becomes
> mostly
> about waiting. (Sure, there is something to be said about extremely
> short, fragmented attention spans being unhealthy – but some
> contributions are naturally
"M. Zhou" writes:
> To be honest, in terms of volunteered reviewing work, waiting
> for several months is not something new. In academia, it may
> take several months to years to get a journal paper response.
Sure, but
(1) that situation isn't popular in academia either,
(2) at least you can
On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 04:13:43PM -0400, M. Zhou wrote:
> If one's enthusiasm on working on some package is eventually
> worn out after a break, then try to think of the following question:
>
> Is it really necessary to introduce XXX to Debian?
> Must I do this to have fun?
>
> Strong
To be honest, in terms of volunteered reviewing work, waiting
for several months is not something new. In academia, it may
take several months to years to get a journal paper response.
I've ever tried to think of possible ways to improve the process, but
several observations eventually changed my
22 matches
Mail list logo
