On 2025-03-06 15:45 +0200, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
Your question perhaps incorporates an underlying assumption that "two days", or "[less] than three or four weeks" is not slow.I'd like to challenge this assumption.
I can ship code from a VCS host, for free, in a few seconds. Heck, I can even ship code from a debian.org domain, from a shared "debian" namespace, in the same amount of time. Salsa admins are not approving every new repository by hand, and it would be preposterous for anyone to even suggest doing that.
<snip>
But, many of us desire more _fundamental_ changes in this space and have been raising this point for years. I personally have felt like stuck between a rock (status quo) and a hard place (sounding thankless to an overworked team of volunteers) for more than a decade.... So I'd like to ask the ftp-master team in particular: what would you suggest is the best way to approach your team in collaboratively evolving and improving the way NEW works? How can the project, either through its DPL, or as individual members desiring such larger systemic changes, convince you for the necessity of making said changes, and ultimately help you in implementing them?
This bit of the thread hasn't got any reaction/traction yet, which surprises me slightly. Do we still even _need_ to pre-review the archive the same way we have been for 30 years? Could not post-review when actual problems are noted be sufficient (given that much of the rest of the ecosystem seems to manage this, although a lot of that is source rather than binaries). I know this has been discussed before, but it seems to me that this is something worth reviewing, because NEW reviewing is a big pile of work and additional friction, and if we _could_ just do less of it, that would be good. Wookey -- Principal hats: Debian, Wookware http://wookware.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
