charm teams

Gustavo Niemeyer gustavo.niemeyer at
Wed Mar 13 19:12:20 UTC 2013

On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Mark Ramm
<mark.ramm-christensen at> wrote:
> I think a long queue is hugely detrimental. It causes loss of momentum for
> contributors, allows work-in-progress to pile up, and causes all kinds of
> related inefficiencies.

Hugely agreed.

> And beyond that centralization of the review process is not going to scale
> as far as we need it too either.
> What would happen if a central group of people were required to review
> *every* package in debian?
> I think it is smart to do something that allows for us to decrease turn
> around time -- and think hard about other ways of improving quality and
> facilitate increased cross-pollination.  Two things which come to mind is
> better documentation and  more attention to "gold standard" practices, and
> more resources behind automated testing.

I'd be even more aggressive: any charm that has a single "graduated"
maintainer doesn't need to be reviewed. Packages with more interested
parties can preserve the reviewing procedure, and they will hopefully
have a reduced turnaround time because the parties should be actually
interested on the project and charm, rather than being just a

Someone being "graduated" is purely a matter of peer-reviewing. When
other graduated maintainers are happy with the given person's
contributions, and believe that the conventions and level of quality
will be respected.

It's better to have an actively maintained charm with less quality,
than a "golden" charm that nobody touches because reviewing kills all
the motivation.

gustavo @

More information about the Juju mailing list