stretchplayer ready for upload

[Reinhard Tartler]

On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 16:11:25 (CET), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 02:26:19PM +0100, Arnout Engelen wrote:
>> I wanted to remind you that stretchplayer is, as far as I can see,
>> ready for upload.
>>
>> As I didn't want to nag, but didn't want this package to be forgotten
>> about either, I talked to Reinhard on IRC about a way to keep
>> track. Using usertags to tag the (ITP) bugs seems like a reasonable
>> approach. A report of tags can be obtained by:
>>
>>  http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org;tag=upload-requested
>>
>> I'd say this tag could also be used on other bugs for which a fix is
>> available in our git.
>>
>> If this seems like a good idea to you, too, I'll document this at the
>> wiki.
>
> Hmm.  If the intend is to maintain an overview of a relatively large
> pile of pending tasks then using usertags seem sensible to me.
>
> But if the intend is to ping DDs then posting to our mailinglist is
> better IMO.

Both can be done with the very same email, just like Arnout just did.

For me as sponsor, I wish a ready and up-to-date list of packages that
require review and uploading, and I hope that this approach helps
here. The thing is that I cannot really predict when I have how much
time to devote for pkg-multimedia. Usually, it is not that much at a
time, and I usually start with reading the mailing list. And by the time
I stumble about an upload request, I have to move on to non-debian
related things. With just a list, I could get to the reviewing step much
faster.

> Related to this it might be interesting to compare with how the Perl
> team does it:
>
> When a package is in progress, the distribution field in changelog is
> set to UNRELEASED, and when the (main) maintainer(s) feel the package is
> ready for release the field is changed to unstable (or experimental or
> whatever is appropriate).

I think this is reasonable and to my observation, is already happening
in pkg-multimedia.

> This (ab)use of the release field is supported by tools like debchange,
> and is also used in the tool PET which AFAIK informs on IRC about
> pending packages.  PET was written for Subversion and currently does not
> support git - the Perl team is interested in that improvement, so if
> anyone here use IRC and see the benefit of that improvement, there is an
> open challenge for you.

Having a PET instance for our team would be really cool to have!

> To me it seems that if we go for a more formal way to hint packages
> being ready for release, then it makes sense to use (parts of) same
> approach the Perl team use.  Perhaps it then makes sense - instead of
> improving PET or in addition to that - to write a git hook which
> auto-applies usertags?

On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 16:45:41 (CET), Arnout Engelen wrote:

> So when this hook is triggered it would check the changelog, and if the 
> distribution field of the latest entry is something other than UNRELEASED, it 
> would add the 'upload-requested' usertag to any bugs closed in this changelog 
> entry?

I don't think this would be a good idea. While the bug in question might
be fixed, the package in git might not be 'good' enough for upload
because of other reasons. This cannot be decided automatically.

-- 
Gruesse/greetings,
Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4