Hi, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: >> It's funny that you bring this up in the thread originiating with this >> specific example.
> I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Could you elaborate? The particular pass through NEW that has been used to demonstrate the deficiency of NEW processing was necessitated by the rename iceweasel-l10n-hi to iceweasel-l10n-hi-in introduced in the previous upload (and processed in 3-4 days or so). This rename took place after uninstallability of iceweasel-l10n-all had been pointed out to the maintainer after he asked for an unblock on release. In essence, this whole trip through NEW would not have happened if the maintainer would actually routinely install his packages before uploading. I am all in favor of fast-tracking urgent stuff, but the deal should involve the maintainer making extra-sure to get things right, too. That is in the past, so I did not want to comment about it in itself. However, you are now using this as an example how the NEW process needs to be streamlined. Sure, package renames could be processed quicker in NEW, but I would much rather that people put enough thought to get their package naming good enough to not need renames often. They are a pain and disservice to our users, too. For totally NEW package the main time-eater is checking the copyright stuff already, with everything else being negligible in comparison. Unless you maintain that the former case should be constituting a large number of packages needing to pass NEW, the main room for optimization lies elsewhere[1]. Kind regards T. 1. Last time I grepped for statistics, about 10% of completely NEW packages were rejected for deficiencies in licensing/copyright documentation. This has been a while, though. -- Thomas Viehmann, http://thomas.viehmann.net/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
