Hello,
I see you have set up some kind of half-automated review system for packages on mentors.
But as I understand you aren't sponsoring any of them yourself and want someone else to do it.
Since I (very rarely) have sponsored packages, I have a suggestion.
I think you should put the final result of your review in the subject of the email.
In that way I can just completely ignore the ones that are failing your review. I think it could be useful for others as well.
Thanks for doing this. Getting stuff uploaded was the biggest hassle for me before becoming a DD, which kept me from packaging more things.
On Sun, 2024-07-21 at 14:39 +0200, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
Hello,
I see you have set up some kind of half-automated review system for packages
on mentors.
But as I understand you aren't sponsoring any of them yourself and want someone else to do it.
Since I (very rarely) have sponsored packages, I have a suggestion.
I think you should put the final result of your review in the subject of the
email.
In that way I can just completely ignore the ones that are failing your review. I think it could be useful for others as well.
Thanks for doing this. Getting stuff uploaded was the biggest hassle for me before becoming a DD, which kept me from packaging more things.
Morning Salvo,
Never be shy to throw out emails such as this to the mentors list also. My ego is not fragile and healthy public discussion putting forward ideas or raising an issue in a constructive friendly way is nothing but good.
I agree, adding such a thing to the subject will be helpful. From this point on I will add "DD Review Ready" to the end of the Request For Sponsorship (RFS) subject line for those passing all initial mentor package submission review tests.
Regards
Phil
--
"I play the game for the game’s own sake"
Arthur Conan Doyle - The Adventure of the Bruce-Partington Plans
--
Internet Relay Chat (IRC): kathenas
Website: https://kathenas.org
Instagram: https://instagram.com/kathenasorg/
Buy Me A Coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/kathenasorg
--
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 06:45:02AM +0100, Phil Wyett wrote:
On Sun, 2024-07-21 at 14:39 +0200, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
Hello,
I see you have set up some kind of half-automated review system for packages
on mentors.
But as I understand you aren't sponsoring any of them yourself and want someone else to do it.
Since I (very rarely) have sponsored packages, I have a suggestion.
I think you should put the final result of your review in the subject of the
email.
In that way I can just completely ignore the ones that are failing your review. I think it could be useful for others as well.
Thanks for doing this. Getting stuff uploaded was the biggest hassle for me
before becoming a DD, which kept me from packaging more things.
https://mentors.debian.net/sponsors/rfs-howto/ has already some
suggestion to use tags for certain states , for example moreinfo is not ready, it should be marked moreinfo and if it is ready to be reviewed
again, the sponsoree should remove the tag. If the package is ready, it
can be tagged "confirmed".
If a DD commits to the sponsorship, the same page suggest to set the
DD records themselves as the owner of the RFS bug.
(I usually work from the BTS when looking for canditates for sponsoring,
so having this tags correctly set will help for this kind of workflows.)
On Monday, July 22, 2024 8:08:08 AM MST Phil Wyett wrote:
Your absolutely right. The use of these tags would be better and I shall do so. When Salvo wishes to browse ready packages, all that needs to be done is
follow the below link:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?include=tags%3Aconfirmed;package
=sponsorship-requests
Why not use mark it as ready using both the tags and the email subject? That
way, people using either interface can easily see RFPs that are ready.
Your absolutely right. The use of these tags would be better and I shall do so. When Salvo wishes to browse ready packages, all that needs to be done is follow the below link:include=tags%3Aconfirmed;package
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?
=sponsorship-requests
On Mon, 2024-07-22 at 13:38 +0200, Tobias Frost wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 06:45:02AM +0100, Phil Wyett wrote:
On Sun, 2024-07-21 at 14:39 +0200, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
Hello,
I see you have set up some kind of half-automated review system for packages
on mentors.
But as I understand you aren't sponsoring any of them yourself and want
someone else to do it.
Since I (very rarely) have sponsored packages, I have a suggestion.
I think you should put the final result of your review in the subject of the
email.
In that way I can just completely ignore the ones that are failing your
review. I think it could be useful for others as well.
Thanks for doing this. Getting stuff uploaded was the biggest hassle for me
before becoming a DD, which kept me from packaging more things.
https://mentors.debian.net/sponsors/rfs-howto/ has already some
suggestion to use tags for certain states , for example moreinfo is not ready, it should be marked moreinfo and if it is ready to be reviewed again, the sponsoree should remove the tag. If the package is ready, it
can be tagged "confirmed".
If a DD commits to the sponsorship, the same page suggest to set the
DD records themselves as the owner of the RFS bug.
(I usually work from the BTS when looking for canditates for sponsoring,
so having this tags correctly set will help for this kind of workflows.)
Hi Tobias,
Your absolutely right. The use of these tags would be better and I shall do so. When Salvo wishes to browse ready packages, all that needs to be done is follow the below link:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?include=tags%3Aconfirmed;package=sponsorship-requests
Regards
Phil
On Monday, July 22, 2024 8:08:08 AM MST Phil Wyett wrote:
Your absolutely right. The use of these tags would be better and I shall do so. When Salvo wishes to browse ready packages, all that needs to be done is
follow the below link:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?include=tags%3Aconfirmed;package
=sponsorship-requests
Why not use mark it as ready using both the tags and the email subject? That
way, people using either interface can easily see RFPs that are ready.
On Mon, 2024-07-22 at 10:26 -0700, Soren Stoutner wrote:
On Monday, July 22, 2024 8:08:08 AM MST Phil Wyett wrote:
Your absolutely right. The use of these tags would be better and I shall do
so. When Salvo wishes to browse ready packages, all that needs to be done is
follow the below link:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?include=tags%3Aconfirmed;package
=sponsorship-requests
Why not use mark it as ready using both the tags and the email subject? That
way, people using either interface can easily see RFPs that are ready.
Hi again,
Thought... Would changing subject cause issue with the scripts of 'bartm' that run against mentors?
Regards
Phil
--
"I play the game for the game’s own sake"
Arthur Conan Doyle - The Adventure of the Bruce-Partington Plans
--
Internet Relay Chat (IRC): kathenas
Website: https://kathenas.org
Instagram: https://instagram.com/kathenasorg/
Buy Me A Coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/kathenasorg
--
On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 08:51:32AM +0100, Phil Wyett wrote:
On Mon, 2024-07-22 at 10:26 -0700, Soren Stoutner wrote:
On Monday, July 22, 2024 8:08:08 AM MST Phil Wyett wrote:
Your absolutely right. The use of these tags would be better and I shall do
so. When Salvo wishes to browse ready packages, all that needs to be done is
follow the below link:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?include=tags%3Aconfirmed;package
=sponsorship-requests
Why not use mark it as ready using both the tags and the email subject? That
way, people using either interface can easily see RFPs that are ready.
Hi again,
Thought... Would changing subject cause issue with the scripts of 'bartm' that run against mentors?
It is currently unclear what exactly the question is. Can I help here?
Regards
Phil
--
"I play the game for the game’s own sake"
Arthur Conan Doyle - The Adventure of the Bruce-Partington Plans
--
Internet Relay Chat (IRC): kathenas
Website: https://kathenas.org
Instagram: https://instagram.com/kathenasorg/
Buy Me A Coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/kathenasorg
--
On Tue, 2024-07-23 at 20:07 +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 08:51:32AM +0100, Phil Wyett wrote:
On Mon, 2024-07-22 at 10:26 -0700, Soren Stoutner wrote:
On Monday, July 22, 2024 8:08:08 AM MST Phil Wyett wrote:
Your absolutely right. The use of these tags would be better and I shall do
so. When Salvo wishes to browse ready packages, all that needs to be done is
follow the below link:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?include=tags%3Aconfirmed;package
=sponsorship-requests
Why not use mark it as ready using both the tags and the email subject? That
way, people using either interface can easily see RFPs that are ready.
Hi again,
Thought... Would changing subject cause issue with the scripts of 'bartm' that run against mentors?
It is currently unclear what exactly the question is. Can I help here?
Hi Bart,
Apologies, I should have explained.
To more easily show if a package on mentors with RFS is ready for a DD to look at/is sane. It has been request that amending the subject/RFS title with "Ready", "Confirmed" or similar too it. Would your scripts see a change and revert any addition something else?
Regards
Phil
--
"I play the game for the game’s own sake"
Arthur Conan Doyle - The Adventure of the Bruce-Partington Plans
--
Internet Relay Chat (IRC): kathenas
Website: https://kathenas.org
Instagram: https://instagram.com/kathenasorg/
Buy Me A Coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/kathenasorg
--
On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 07:27:13PM +0100, Phil Wyett wrote:
On Tue, 2024-07-23 at 20:07 +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 08:51:32AM +0100, Phil Wyett wrote:
On Mon, 2024-07-22 at 10:26 -0700, Soren Stoutner wrote:
On Monday, July 22, 2024 8:08:08 AM MST Phil Wyett wrote:
Your absolutely right. The use of these tags would be better and I shall do
so. When Salvo wishes to browse ready packages, all that needs to be done is
follow the below link:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?include=tags%3Aconfirmed;package
=sponsorship-requests
Why not use mark it as ready using both the tags and the email subject? That
way, people using either interface can easily see RFPs that are ready.
Hi again,
Thought... Would changing subject cause issue with the scripts of 'bartm'
that run against mentors?
It is currently unclear what exactly the question is. Can I help here?
Hi Bart,
Apologies, I should have explained.
To more easily show if a package on mentors with RFS is ready for a DD to look at/is sane. It has been request that amending the subject/RFS title with
"Ready", "Confirmed" or similar too it. Would your scripts see a change and revert any addition something else?
Thanks for asking and explaining.
Well, an RFS in itself already expresses a request for sponsorship, meaning that the package should be availabe for review. When the package is not available, or no longer needs reviewing, then there should be no open RFS.
There is also the flag "needs a sponsor=yes" at mentors.d.n expressing a request for sponsorship. Keeping this flag (and the package version) in sync with the RFS is often forgotten.
I believe that adding something in the RFS title expressing somewhat the same,
would complicate things even more. New packagers are already often confused on
when to open or close an RFP, ITP, RFA, O, ITA or RFS, against wnpp or sponsorship-requests or the package name, and also on whether to use mentors.d.n or an RFS or both. And on whether one should ask for a review on the debian-mentors mailing list.
So I would rather like to see things simplified, for both packagers and sponsors. In my view a web interface like mentors.d.n is easier understood by
newcomers. So maybe the better choice could be dropping RFSes alltogether?
Does the above answer your question?
Regards
Phil
--
"I play the game for the game’s own sake"
Arthur Conan Doyle - The Adventure of the Bruce-Partington Plans
--
Internet Relay Chat (IRC): kathenas
Website: https://kathenas.org
Instagram: https://instagram.com/kathenasorg/
Buy Me A Coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/kathenasorg
--
I wasn't talking about the bug title.
I was talking about the subject of the emails here in the list.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 08:07:30 |
| Calls: | 12,100 |
| Files: | 15,003 |
| Messages: | 6,517,947 |