Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.devel > #116321
| From | Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.debian.devel |
| Subject | Re: Growing new FTP-masters (Re: Bits from DPL) |
| Date | 2025-03-09 12:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <KomRj-4M3o-5@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (2 earlier) <Kn28h-3Rdi-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <KnesO-3Zmi-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <Kngbf-40lA-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <Knj97-42Lx-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <KogCd-4HV1-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw
Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> 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 packages, find their problems if any, then come
>> back".
>
> 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.
Is there any policy to forbid or accept uploading two packages A and B
at the same time to NEW where package A depends on package B?
I am guessing based on earlier e-mail interactions that this causes
problems for your review workflow, so I've stopped doing simultaneous
uploads and instead upload package B first and then wait for ACCEPT and
then upload package A etc.
That policy lead to a slow migration path, since for many Go packages
the dependency chain of NEW packages can be quite deep. If I recall
correctly, I had this dependency situation earlier:
sigstore
-> sigstore-go
-> cosign
-> gittuf
-> gitsign
It would be nice to clarify in those documents if indeed there is a
policy on this. It seems surprising to me, since it would make it
impossible to get a set of NEW packages which have cyclic dependencies
into Debian.
Of course, a more gray situation like "we don't want to forbid it but it
causes us more work so please don't do it" is perfectly fine too.
Writing that down helps people do the right thing. The question has
come up two times for me when sponsoring new Go package uploads.
/Simon
Back to linux.debian.devel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: Bits from DPL Nilesh Patra <nilesh@iki.fi> - 2025-03-05 19:30 +0100
Growing new FTP-masters (Re: Bits from DPL) Otto Kekäläinen <otto@debian.org> - 2025-03-05 20:00 +0100
Re: Growing new FTP-masters (Re: Bits from DPL) Matthias Urlichs <matthias@urlichs.de> - 2025-03-06 09:10 +0100
Re: Growing new FTP-masters (Re: Bits from DPL) Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2025-03-06 11:00 +0100
Re: Growing new FTP-masters (Re: Bits from DPL) Matthias Urlichs <matthias@urlichs.de> - 2025-03-06 14:10 +0100
Re: Growing new FTP-masters (Re: Bits from DPL) Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2025-03-09 05:40 +0100
Re: Growing new FTP-masters (Re: Bits from DPL) Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> - 2025-03-09 12:20 +0100
Re: Growing new FTP-masters (Re: Bits from DPL) Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> - 2025-03-09 12:40 +0100
Re: Growing new FTP-masters (Re: Bits from DPL) Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2025-03-09 12:50 +0100
Re: Growing new FTP-masters (Re: Bits from DPL) Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2025-03-09 12:40 +0100
Re: Growing new FTP-masters (Re: Bits from DPL) "G. Branden Robinson" <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> - 2025-03-09 12:50 +0100
Re: Growing new FTP-masters (Re: Bits from DPL) Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2025-03-09 15:00 +0100
Re: Growing new FTP-masters (Re: Bits from DPL) Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2025-03-19 00:30 +0100
Re: NEW review & revision process (or lack thereof) (Re: Growing new FTP-masters (Re: Bits from DPL)) Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> - 2025-03-10 11:10 +0100
Re: NEW review & revision process (or lack thereof) (Re: Growing new FTP-masters (Re: Bits from DPL)) Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> - 2025-03-10 11:50 +0100
Re: NEW review & revision process (or lack thereof) (Re: Growing new FTP-masters (Re: Bits from DPL)) "Jonathan Dowland" <jmtd@debian.org> - 2025-03-10 13:00 +0100
Re: Growing new FTP-masters (Re: Bits from DPL) Otto Kekäläinen <otto@debian.org> - 2025-03-06 20:20 +0100
Re: Bits from DPL Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2025-03-06 02:10 +0100
Revisiting the idea of pre-NEW peer review? (Re: Bits from DPL) Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> - 2025-03-06 05:30 +0100
Re: Revisiting the idea of pre-NEW peer review? (Re: Bits from DPL) Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2025-03-06 10:50 +0100
Re: Revisiting the idea of pre-NEW peer review? (Re: Bits from DPL) Julien Plissonneau Duquène <sre4ever@free.fr> - 2025-03-06 11:00 +0100
Re: Revisiting the idea of pre-NEW peer review? (Re: Bits from DPL) Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> - 2025-03-07 02:00 +0100
Re: Revisiting the idea of pre-NEW peer review? (Re: Bits from DPL) Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> - 2025-03-07 18:30 +0100
Re: Revisiting the idea of pre-NEW peer review? (Re: Bits from DPL) Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> - 2025-03-08 02:10 +0100
Re: Revisiting the idea of pre-NEW peer review? (Re: Bits from DPL) Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> - 2025-03-08 09:50 +0100
Re: Revisiting the idea of pre-NEW peer review? (Re: Bits from DPL) Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2025-03-09 06:30 +0100
Re: Revisiting the idea of pre-NEW peer review? (Re: Bits from DPL) Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> - 2025-03-10 11:40 +0100
Re: Revisiting the idea of pre-NEW peer review? (Re: Bits from DPL) Maytham Alsudany <maytham@debian.org> - 2025-03-09 11:10 +0100
Re: Revisiting the idea of pre-NEW peer review? (Re: Bits from DPL) Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> - 2025-03-11 10:00 +0100
Re: Revisiting the idea of pre-NEW peer review? (Re: Bits from DPL) Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> - 2025-03-11 16:40 +0100
Re: Revisiting the idea of pre-NEW peer review? (Re: Bits from DPL) Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> - 2025-03-12 02:00 +0100
Re: Revisiting the idea of pre-NEW peer review? (Re: Bits from DPL) Maytham Alsudany <maytham@debian.org> - 2025-03-12 04:10 +0100
Re: Revisiting the idea of pre-NEW peer review? (Re: Bits from DPL) Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> - 2025-03-12 09:50 +0100
Re: Revisiting the idea of pre-NEW peer review? (Re: Bits from DPL) Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> - 2025-03-13 10:10 +0100
Re: Revisiting the idea of pre-NEW peer review? (Re: Bits from DPL) Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> - 2025-03-06 13:30 +0100
Re: Revisiting the idea of pre-NEW peer review? (Re: Bits from DPL) Otto Kekäläinen <otto@debian.org> - 2025-03-06 20:10 +0100
Re: Revisiting the idea of pre-NEW peer review? (Re: Bits from DPL) Pirate Praveen <praveen@onenetbeyond.org> - 2025-03-07 09:00 +0100
Re: Revisiting the idea of pre-NEW peer review? (Re: Bits from DPL) Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2025-03-07 11:20 +0100
Re: Revisiting the idea of pre-NEW peer review? (Re: Bits from DPL) Otto Kekäläinen <otto@debian.org> - 2025-03-07 16:00 +0100
Re: Revisiting the idea of pre-NEW peer review? (Re: Bits from DPL) Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2025-03-09 06:20 +0100
Re: Bits from DPL Marc Haber <mh+debian-devel@zugschlus.de> - 2025-03-06 09:10 +0100
STFU please (Re: Bits from DPL) Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2025-03-06 09:40 +0100
Re: STFU please (Re: Bits from DPL) Marc Haber <mh+debian-devel@zugschlus.de> - 2025-03-06 10:00 +0100
Re: STFU please (Re: Bits from DPL) Matthias Urlichs <matthias@urlichs.de> - 2025-03-06 10:10 +0100
Re: STFU please (Re: Bits from DPL) Soren Stoutner <soren@debian.org> - 2025-03-08 00:30 +0100
Re: STFU please (Re: Bits from DPL) Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2025-03-06 11:10 +0100
Re: Bits from DPL Matthias Urlichs <matthias@urlichs.de> - 2025-03-06 10:10 +0100
Re: Bits from DPL Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2025-03-10 12:00 +0100
csiph-web