On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 07:27:13PM +0100, Phil Wyett wrote: > On Tue, 2024-07-23 at 20:07 +0200, Bart Martens wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 08:51:32AM +0100, Phil Wyett wrote: > > > On Mon, 2024-07-22 at 10:26 -0700, Soren Stoutner wrote: > > > > On Monday, July 22, 2024 8:08:08 AM MST Phil Wyett wrote: > > > > > Your absolutely right. The use of these tags would be better and I > > > > > shall do > > > > > so. When Salvo wishes to browse ready packages, all that needs to be > > > > > done is > > > > > follow the below link: > > > > > > > > > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi? > > > > include=tags%3Aconfirmed;package > > > > > =sponsorship-requests > > > > > > > > Why not use mark it as ready using both the tags and the email subject? > > > > That > > > > way, people using either interface can easily see RFPs that are ready. > > > > > > > > > > Hi again, > > > > > > Thought... Would changing subject cause issue with the scripts of 'bartm' > > > that run against mentors? > > > > It is currently unclear what exactly the question is. Can I help here? > > > > Hi Bart, > > Apologies, I should have explained. > > To more easily show if a package on mentors with RFS is ready for a DD to > look at/is sane. It has been request that amending the subject/RFS title with > "Ready", "Confirmed" or similar too it. Would your scripts see a change and > revert any addition something else?
Thanks for asking and explaining. Well, an RFS in itself already expresses a request for sponsorship, meaning that the package should be availabe for review. When the package is not available, or no longer needs reviewing, then there should be no open RFS. There is also the flag "needs a sponsor=yes" at mentors.d.n expressing a request for sponsorship. Keeping this flag (and the package version) in sync with the RFS is often forgotten. I believe that adding something in the RFS title expressing somewhat the same, would complicate things even more. New packagers are already often confused on when to open or close an RFP, ITP, RFA, O, ITA or RFS, against wnpp or sponsorship-requests or the package name, and also on whether to use mentors.d.n or an RFS or both. And on whether one should ask for a review on the debian-mentors mailing list. So I would rather like to see things simplified, for both packagers and sponsors. In my view a web interface like mentors.d.n is easier understood by newcomers. So maybe the better choice could be dropping RFSes alltogether? Does the above answer your question? > > Regards > > Phil > > -- > "I play the game for the game’s own sake" > > Arthur Conan Doyle - The Adventure of the Bruce-Partington Plans > > -- > > Internet Relay Chat (IRC): kathenas > > Website: https://kathenas.org > > Instagram: https://instagram.com/kathenasorg/ > > Buy Me A Coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/kathenasorg > > -- > --
