Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.devel > #116432

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

Show all headers | View raw

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw

Maytham Alsudany <maytham@debian.org> 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 request
>>      button in the issue page, to add the package in the table below.  (Or just
>>      editing the file directly is fine?)
>
> Wouldn't using an issue's open/closed status and tags be sufficient
> rather than MRs for each issue? For instance:

Yeah I also find multiple issue per package confusing.  With one issue
per package, it is easy to add comments to the issue explaining what has
to change, and to discuss those changes.  The top-level summary can also
be updated to summarize current status.

> - open = not in the archive yet
> - closed = in the archive / abandoned
> - tag "passed-review"
> - tag "accepted" when the package enters the archive

Right, tags can be used to even further summarize things.

> I also suggest using a standard naming scheme like "package/version"
> (e.g. "r-cran-multitaper/1.0-17-1") for easy lookup of packages as well
> as different versions (for binNEW).

+1

> Then, if ftp-masters want to check for a peer-review, they can just look
> for the name of the package in the list of open issues, named with a
> standard "package-name/package-version". 

+1

> And if the table in README is still necessary, then (I think) a CI
> pipeline can update it from the issue data.

Doable, but I'm not sure that complexity adds anything.

>>   4. Somebody merges the request after verifying quickly that the checklist was
>>      properly addressed.
>> 
>>   5. Reviewers open issues with the _Review_ template.  If problems are found,
>>      they ping the maintainer with their salsa ID in the issue discussion. Reviews
>>      end by adding the issue ID in the table below via a MR to be accepted and
>>      merged by the package maintainer.
>> 
>>   6. Once all reviewers thumbs are up, update the table below (with or without
>>      MR), and upload to NEW.
>> 
>>   7. Once the package leaves the NEW queue, record the outcome in the table below.
>
> Some definition of scope would be useful (e.g. "we don't check if the
> program runs or if the package builds (that's the responsibility of the
> uploader), we just do the same checks as those that happen in the NEW
> queue").

+1 -- that is the responsibility of the main Salsa pipeline, I think.

> Let me know how I can help! I enjoy reviewing copyright files, so if any
> arise, please send them my way :)

I hope that we can find some problem to fix in the `litetlog` packaging
when I submit it, arguing for the awesomeness of this effort :)

/Simon

Back to linux.debian.devel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

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