Hi all, Following Maytham and Simon's feedback, I now propose a workflow that is purely based on issues. The default template is a checklist to guide the reviews.
<https://salsa.debian.org/newgateway-team/reviews/-/blob/main/.gitlab/issue_templates/Default.md?ref_type=heads> (please bear in mind that it is work-in-progress) I think that it is best to have one issue per review, and therefore per reviewer, as it helps transparency and accountability. If there would be one log with three persons discussion and rebutals mixed together, I think that it would be harder to follow. This said, I think that in most of the cases nobody should have to read the reviews again: we should aim for packages perfecly clean. In the worst case scenario, notes to the FTP team should go through the usual channels (README.source, etc.). We should not ask them to spend time on our experiment. The package maintainer essentially does the same review as the reviewers, hence a single default template should be enough. To ease everybody's work, I think that we should ask that the Salsa CI standard pipeline should pass unless there is a good reason for failing. Lintian has a bunch of essential checks for copyright files... This is not set in stone, and the CI tests are still sparse and fragile (GitLab CI advices or MRs welcome), but I welcome everybody to have a look and try it. Mathyam, Simon, I pinged you with your @id on Salsa; please let me know if you did not get message: it is essential that it is easy for everyone to get that right. Have a nice day, Charles -- Charles Plessy Nagahama, Yomitan, Okinawa, Japan Debian Med packaging team http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tooting from home https://framapiaf.org/@charles_plessy - You do not have my permission to use this email to train an AI -
