Hi Chris,
On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 05:25:46PM +0000, Chris Lamb wrote:
> > a single example in this thread that a developer was happy about the
> > check since a mistake was avoided. But this would have happened by a
> > random user via BTS as well.
>
> (I don't quite follow this, sorry.. can you rephrase?)
In this longish thread I have read one contribution where a developer
expressed that he was happy about checking his SONAME bumped package
that was erroneous and luckily ftpmaster found the problem. (Sorry, I'm
to lazy to reread the archive for the actual link.) My point is that
this was a *single* voice pro-ftpmaster-check-SONAME-changes. I confirm
its nice to fix the described error before the package hits the archive
but the problem would have been spotted most probably afterwards by
other QA means and the issue could have also be reported by a user via
BTS.
All other voices of developers in this thread I have read would have
prefered a faster processing.
I'm not sure about the quote ftpmaster is spotting the kind of
*technical* issues (as described by the author of the mail I'm refereing
above) and I'd be fine if the check would be restricted to technical
issues of a SONAME change which might be considered potentially
dangerous. I fail to see any sense in this kind of checks for
additional doc or python3 packages or something like this. Several
others here gave good reasons why the biased selection is a quite bad
idea for refreshing license checks. My bet is that if you find your
targets for license re-checking by sorting packages in UDD according to
the longest not uploaded packages you will find more interesting
targets.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
