Readjusting SRU review process

[Martin Pitt]

Brian Murray [2013-05-24  8:00 -0700]:
> On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 05:44:50AM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
> > I've seldomly actually done that in my SRU review times. Instead, I
> > followed up on the bug(s) with the reasons why the upload was
> > rejected. In the (rare) cases where an SRU upload did not refer to any
> > bugs, I just sent an IRC notification to the uploader.
> 
> I think not rejecting uploads when something is missing causes duplicate
> work for the other members of the SRU team as they end up reviewing the
> same SRU and upload only to discover that it is missing information.

I fully agree, I wasn't actually suggesting that. I always rejected
these packages right away, and then followed up on bugs (or if there
weren't linked any, on IRC). The uploader will get a reject email, and
some asked for further info on IRC, but as uploaders should be
subscribed to the fixed bugs anyway they should get the
notification/reason.

> Having said that, I currently don't reject things because there is not a
> good way to communicate the reason for rejection to the uploader.

Why is following up in the bug not a good way?

Martin
-- 
Martin Pitt                        | http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com)  | Debian Developer  (www.debian.org)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/attachments/20130524/3c5805cb/attachment.pgp>