>>>>> "Michael" == Michael Lustfield <mich...@lustfield.net> writes:
Michael> On Tue, 26 May 2020 08:13:24 -0400
Michael> Sam Hartman <hartm...@debian.org> wrote:
>> Unfortunately, being a member of Debian, I find myself getting
>> stuck in the details and think you may have gotten a few things
>> wrong.
>>
>> * I think that reviewing a file every time the salt changes is
>> too frequent. It is a sign that we might need to review, not
>> that we certainly do. We don't tend to review files every time
>> they change today, and I think pushing toward this would be
>> problematic.
Michael> At the moment, when a package hits binNEW or NEW, *all*
Michael> files need to be re-checked by the reviewer. There is no
Michael> single-file review. This is appropriate because there are
Michael> many times where code copies have been added to the source
Michael> but not added to d/copyright. Some of these code copies are
Michael> even embedded in previously-reviewed files that have
Michael> another license.
Michael> Pushing this direction would reduce efforts, not increase
Michael> them.
I think you and Mo are a bit stuck in the ftp-team mindset with the
above. *whenever new or bin-new is triggered, all files are reviewed.*
But to an outsider, what it sounds like Mo is proposing is that whenever
the salt is changed, review needs to be triggered, even if new would not
be triggered in the current model.
My thoughts are that
1) I think it's worth being clear that you're not proposing increasing
the rounds of new review.
2) Long term, having a persistent database of review state might allow
us to have better criteria for when to trigger license review.
--Sam
