re-vision on the ARB

[Bhavani Shankar R]

On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 9:41 PM, Jonathan Carter <jonathan at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> On 17/08/2012 12:50, Allison Randal wrote:
>>> Despite the best efforts of the ARB, the gatekeeper approach is
>>> definitely not working. With this in mind I have been working with
>>> some folks to propose a new process for app devs. I will post about it
>>> next week when some of the thinking is jotted down.
>>
>> I've been pondering what my ideal ARB process might look like, and it
>> seems to be completely upside down of what we have now. Instead of
>> manually verifying that each app meets the policy, we automatically
>> verify what we can (which could include /opt path checks and apparmor
>> profile checks), and have the system just publish if it passes those
>> checks. Make sure we have an easy way for users to report any violations
>> or bad effects, and be very responsive to remove offending packages.
>
> That would be awesome! I think it's the only way you could have the
> process scale.
>
> I also think it might be a good idea to have a quarantine (like
> -proposed) first, so perhaps an app could go into some staging-like
> repository first and if early adopters havnen't found a major problem or
> violation with it within a certain short period of time (could be as
> short as a day or two) then it could be moved over to the main
> repository. I just think it's important to be weary of kids who are
> going to upload things that are going to remove all your documents or
> something silly like that as a prank.

+1 here. I think we are already uploading to staging PPA to do some
basic testing and could refine the process as said above to ensure
better quality (By making early adapters of the package give some
feedback on the package in staging PPA about the functionality of the
app)

/me remembers the SRU process in ubuntu here.

Regards,


-- 
Bhavani Shankar
Ubuntu Developer       |  www.ubuntu.com
https://launchpad.net/~bhavi