Path: csiph.com!4.us.feeder.erje.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!weretis.net!feeder7.news.weretis.net!news.mixmin.net!aioe.org!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com>
Newsgroups: linux.debian.maint.python
Subject: Re: Merge Requests
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2019 12:30:01 +0100
Message-ID: <zajY5-5xc-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <zaifE-4pX-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
Old-Return-Path: <debian@kitterman.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Approved: robomod@news.nic.it
Lines: 57
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
Sender: robomod@news.nic.it
Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:12115

It looks like a lot of this is lintian-brush generated and of questionable =
value, IMO=2E  As an example, bumping compat to 12 is trivial to do=2E =20

The hard part is checking if it affects the package content, so the bot ha=
s produced a proposed change that will take far longer to verify than it wo=
uld to produce=2E  If I had time to do the checking, I don't need a merge r=
equest for the trivial bit of changing one number=2E

I'd caution against just accepting such changes without careful review=2E

Scott K

On December 6, 2019 9:34:59 AM UTC, Jonathan Carter <jcc@debian=2Eorg> wro=
te:
>Hey debian python team
>
>We currently have a few merge requests open:
>
>=3D=3D tools =3D=3D
>
>Count: 6
>
>https://salsa=2Edebian=2Eorg/groups/python-team/tools/-/merge_requests
>
>=3D=3D papt =3D=3D
>
>Count: 8
>
>https://salsa=2Edebian=2Eorg/groups/python-team/applications/-/merge_requ=
ests
>
>=3D=3D dpmt =3D=3D
>
>Count: 31
>
>https://salsa=2Edebian=2Eorg/groups/python-team/modules/-/merge_requests
>
>
>I merged a bunch of trivial ones yesterday, but even then it seems like
>we have some problems which might need some update in our policy in
>dealing with merge requests=2E
>
>I noticed that one MR fixed some typos but did it in the upstream
>source
>directly, which isn't all that useful to us=2E
>
>For other MRs, I noticed that many small changes in the packaging
>didn't
>have an associated changelog entry with it, so I had to dch to add a
>changelog entry=2E I think for small changes I'd prefer the person who
>submits the MR to add them=2E For larger ones it probably makes sense not
>to do that since it might take longer=2E
>
>Any suggestions? How about we draft some MR policy in gobby and get it
>added to the PAPT/DPMT policies?
>
>-Jonathan