Wookey <woo...@wookware.org> writes: > For what it is worth I concur with everything that Russ has written, and > would like to have us look at this again (and that's honestly not > particularly because I currenly have the honour of the 6th-oldest > package in NEW (8 months) :-) In general I have found NEW valuable as > FTP-masters sometimes spot things that I missed, but the delay, and > perhaps worse, the highly uncertain length of the delay (anything from a > day to a year), is a significant cost and drag, and it seems > increasingly anachronistic as the rest of the software ecosystem seems > to accelerate around us (not entirely a good thing, of course). Who > needs quality when you can have updates, eh?
I would hate to entirely lose the quality review that we get via NEW, but I wonder if we could regain many those benefits by setting up some sort of peer review system for new packages that is less formal and less bottlenecked on a single team than the current NEW processing setup. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>