Is the NEW queue going to get processed any time soon? There's a load
of packages that are 3 weeks or more old.
Thanks,
-S
12-03-2008, 07:18 AM
Daniel Baumann
NEW processing
Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> Is the NEW queue going to get processed any time soon? There's a load
> of packages that are 3 weeks or more old.
I was wondering myself too, since I'm always doing uploads with
*minimal* impact on NEW (means, uploading new stuff first, and then
upload a dedicated version that changes only the thing which makes it go
to NEW to limit the work of ftp-masters reading diffs), e.g.:
nevertheless, this is stuck in NEW for 3 weeks, whereas other uploads of
mine that were new packages (rather than package renames like above)
were processed last week after beeing stuck for 3 to 4 weeks.
since this has happened regularly like this over the last three years, I
conclude that apparently there is no connection between the size of the
changes and i can save the time for my efforts to limit them from now on.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
12-03-2008, 07:55 AM
Kalle Kivimaa
NEW processing
"Steve M. Robbins" <steve@sumost.ca> writes:
> Is the NEW queue going to get processed any time soon? There's a load
> of packages that are 3 weeks or more old.
The NEW queue is constantly being processed. Unfortunately it seems
that in the normal case more packages enter NEW than are processed, so
the queue grows. Then at some point the ftpmasters get too annoyed
with it and have a weekend NEW cleaning session, bringing it down to a
more manageable size (50-60 packages).
Seems like it's time for another such session, the queue is at 176
packages or so.
--
* Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P) *
* PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer *
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
12-03-2008, 08:05 AM
Daniel Baumann
NEW processing
Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> The NEW queue is constantly being processed.
depends on the point of view i guess. interestingly, the following
change required exactely 9.5 days, although ftp-master was asked to
fasttrack for lenny-migration:
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
12-03-2008, 09:24 AM
Holger Levsen
NEW processing
Hi,
On Wednesday 03 December 2008 10:05, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> > The NEW queue is constantly being processed.
> depends on the point of view i guess.
only those who dont have any backlogs in their voluntary duties, please throw
the first stone.
also, as far as I know, the ftp-team is still looking for new members, it's
just that not many people want to do the work. (last time they called, only 4
people replied, out of which 2 became ftp-assistents. pretty good, IMNSHO)
regards,
Holger
12-03-2008, 09:56 AM
Romain Beauxis
NEW processing
Le Wednesday 03 December 2008 09:55:24 Kalle Kivimaa, vous avez écrit*:
> "Steve M. Robbins" <steve@sumost.ca> writes:
> > Is the NEW queue going to get processed any time soon? *There's a load
> > of packages that are 3 weeks or more old.
>
> The NEW queue is constantly being processed. Unfortunately it seems
> that in the normal case more packages enter NEW than are processed, so
> the queue grows. Then at some point the ftpmasters get too annoyed
> with it and have a weekend NEW cleaning session, bringing it down to a
> more manageable size (50-60 packages).
I've always wondered why it is not possible to add meta information to an
upload.
While I totally understand a delay for new packages, as for Daniel, I
sometimes upload package which go to NEW but for reasons that should take a
minute to check, like new binary packages. In these cases, it would be nice
to add an annotation to give hints about the complexity of the task to the
ftp-masters..
Romain
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
12-03-2008, 10:07 AM
Cyril Brulebois
NEW processing
Romain Beauxis <toots@rastageeks.org> (03/12/2008):
> I've always wondered why it is not possible to add meta information to
> an upload.
> […]
> In these cases, it would be nice to add an annotation to give hints
> about the complexity of the task to the ftp-masters..
You want debian/changelog?
Mraw,
KiBi.
12-03-2008, 11:34 AM
Lucas Nussbaum
NEW processing
On 03/12/08 at 11:24 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wednesday 03 December 2008 10:05, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> > > The NEW queue is constantly being processed.
> > depends on the point of view i guess.
>
> only those who dont have any backlogs in their voluntary duties, please throw
> the first stone.
It surprises me that the only solution to that problem seems to be to
add more people to the FTP team, so that the processing bandwidth will
improve.
That's not true. We imposed that reviewing step to ourselves, and, if
it's doing more harm (by slowing down development and annoying
contributors) than good (by detecting mistakes and improving Debian's
overall quality), we could simply decide to drop it. (or to drop it
partially, for some categories of uploads).
It's funny how in Debian, we always prefer to add more checks (which
always let some things get thought while they shouldn't) rather than
trusting developers to do the right thing. It's similar to what happened
to the NM process.
--
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |
I depends how the workflow for ftp-masters. Apparently these packages stay in
NEW for the same time as the others, although the changelog is documented.
Romain
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
12-03-2008, 11:56 AM
Cyril Brulebois
NEW processing
Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net> (03/12/2008):
> That's not true. We imposed that reviewing step to ourselves, and, if
> it's doing more harm (by slowing down development and annoying
> contributors) than good (by detecting mistakes and improving Debian's
> overall quality), we could simply decide to drop it. (or to drop it
> partially, for some categories of uploads).
How do you see the legalese aspect? In the harm or good box?
> It's funny how in Debian, we always prefer to add more checks (which
> always let some things get thought while they shouldn't) rather than
^^^^^^^
through?
> trusting developers to do the right thing. It's similar to what
> happened to the NM process.
NEW processing
