Bug#859123: automating process for publishing DLAs on the website

Holger Levsen <[email protected]> Wed, 19 Dec 2018 14:44:02 +0000
Newsgroups	gmane.linux.debian.devel.www
Message-ID	<20181219144402.qzfm5dopbc67gaqy__17044.4130585112$1545230776$gmane$org@layer-acht.org>
Hi Antoine,

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:15:15AM -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> >> How does that sound?
> > sounds very good to me. thanks for your work on this so far!
> Right, agreed. :) I guess the script could both parse previous emails
> and future ones quite easily.
 
yup, that would be cool.

> The problem we have right now is we have no feedback from the www team
> on the patches proposed in #859122 so I don't know if the formatting is
> alright.

I've just asked on #debian-www to comment:

[15:37] <      h01ger> | it would be very nice if you could comment on
the patches proposed/linked in #859122 - those are
https://salsa.debian.org/webmaster-team/webwml/merge_requests/41 and 
https://salsa.debian.org/webmaster-team/webwml/merge_requests/42
and
https://salsa.debian.org/webmaster-team/webwml/merge_requests/43

I also note #859122 is not marked 'patch'.

> Nor is it promising for the promptness with which the team can
> respond to our constant flurry of such MRs in the future...

I'm not this pessimistic: first, (after a while) those patches should 
be pretty clear ones and they will know that. second, I do think that in
the long term we should just be able to directly push our DLAs on the
website, without a (human) proxy.

> > So I've just requested webwml access from the debian-www folks.
> ... where did you do that?

on salsa. I was also granted access 4 weeks ago it seems :)

> Considering that the patches I proposed now 3 weeks ago haven't been
> merged, it seems it would be imperative for all LTS people to have
> access to the www repository in our workflow. Or at least a significant
> numebr of people. Otherwise we'll just be clogging their review queue
> forever.

agreed. and as said (previously): for a start being i'm happy to act as a human
proxy...

> I've requested access as an individual, for what that's worth.

you were given access a week ago, too. \o/

> I've also got feedback from larjona on IRC, saying she didn't have time
> to work on this yet, but ping'd the team to see if someone else
> will. Otherwise she might be able to review our work in January.

that's almost like next week ;)

> I wonder if we could consider more automation here to remove the manual
> push/pull process, because it seems it will be a significant source of
> friction in our process in the future...

sure, more automation = better.

> Anyways, hopefully we'll figure out a workflow soon enough. :)

I'm confident we will, eventually. #859122 was filed >18 months ago, so
I don't think it's suddenly urgent, though I fully agree it would be
more than nice to have this fixed before the bug is two years old.


-- 
cheers,
	Holger

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
       PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)