New Process Review: Post App Release Process

[Jono Bacon]

Hi Martin,

Thanks for your excellent feedback. Much appreciated. Comments inline.

On 14 July 2010 03:12, Martin Pitt <martin.pitt at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>  * The partner archive does not get locked down after release. To the
>   contrary, it is usually (rather) empty at release time. I fixed
>   that in [1], I hope it is ok to edit it inline? If not, please
>   revert.

This looks great. Thanks!

>  * I don't quite understand the purpose of the "The process only
>   applies to a specific version of an application" limitation. Does
>   that mean that the process has to be re-done for each version bump?
>   If software-center merely gets a link to the PPA, or a package name
>   in a PPA, then the developer can just upload newer versions?

the original thinking is that the process only applies new versions of
software that are not already packaged in the archives. So Lernid 2.0
would not be accepted (as their is a Lernid in the archive), but
MyFooApp 1.0 would be eligible to use the process.

>  * We had used a wiki based queue for MIRs for quite some time, and it
>   got rather cumbersome. As an alternative we could create an
>   ubuntu-app-review LP project and file review requests as bugs
>   against it. That way we get dynamic queue lists, can assign them to
>   people, and can track their state ("incomplete", "wontfix", "fix
>   committed" (approved), "fix released" (added to sw-center)).
>
>   This would also eliminiate the explicit "mail this list" step,
>   since it happens automatically due to bug subscriptions.

I think this makes much more sense. to this end I have updated the
process document to reflect this and I have registered
https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu-app-review-board which can act as a
place to track these bugs.

>  * "Includes family-friendly end-user content": If interpreted
>   strictly, this might also rule out quite a lot of games. Do we
>   really want that?

I added this in the interests of completeness, but this could open up
a can of worms about what we consider "family friendly". Do you think
we should remove this?

>  * The package review is a lot like reviews on REVU or the NEW queue
>   for archive admins, just with some more relaxed checks. However,
>   should we do a rigorous copyright/license evaluation that we do for
>   the NEW queue? I. e. ascertain that all files in the package have
>   a unique copyright and license assigned, and that there are no
>   files that violate the license? A common example for the latter is
>   a PDF file without the OO.o/LaTeX/etc. source in a GPL package. We
>   can probably allow some leeway here, since we do not ship those
>   packages in Ubuntu, but at least some cursory checks might be
>   adequate.

Agreed. This already an item in the assessment checklist.

> Otherwise this process looks suitable to me.

Thanks, Martin. Do you consider the process as it stands now something
you are comfortable to provide a +1 on?

  Jono

-- 
Jono Bacon
Ubuntu Community Manager
www.ubuntu.com / www.jonobacon.org
www.identi.ca/jonobacon www.twitter.com/jonobacon