[arch-dev-public] Signoffs on simple version bumps (was: [signoff] man-pages 3.08-1)

[Aaron Griffin]

On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 1:03 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 11:25 AM, Andreas Radke <a.radke at arcor.de> wrote:
>>>>> too slow. now please signoff 3.08-1
>>>>
>>>> New proposal here. For packages that meet the following criteria (this
>>>> was on-the-fly, I really don't think it needs to be set in stone):
>>>> 1. Frequent releases (anything 2 weeks or quicker)
>>>> 2. Little to no system impact if broken (initscripts would not fit the
>>>> bill, for instance, but man-pages are not critical)
>>>> 3. Can be easily verified by the maintainer to be working
>>>>
>>>> Can we skip the signoff procedure? The maintainer is of course free to
>>>> still ask for it, but it would keep our pipeline from getting
>>>> logjammed by stuff that really isn't in need of serious testing.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe just have list of packages in core we agree can be moved without
>>>> signoffs, such as man-pages, tzdata, etc.
>>>
>>> Yeah, I thought about this in the beginning, but it's easier to make a
>>> blanket rule than to start adding exceptions.
>>>
>>> I'm interested in hearing opinions on this.
>>>
>>
>> Dusty: Do you think it would be possible to add a DB table for
>> packages excluded from signoffs? If we can do this, and integrate it
>> with the web interface for signoffs, I can manage the actual contents
>> of the table myself (or, well, anyone with django admin access can).
>
> Wouldn't this be overkill? Sometimes a package would want signoffs,
> other times you may not. And the signoff links don't show up for
> packages not in testing anyway. And what happens when packages in
> extra get thrown into testing? I guess it looks like a can of worms
> not worth opening to me.

That's a good point. You're talking about skipping testing altogether.

Hmm, I'd have to think on this. Even though man-pages is not system
critical, I like the concept of preserving the integrity of [core].

I think, if we all start using the web-based signoffs a little more,
this might become a quicker process. I was able to do a scan down the
list and signoff on a few very quickly.