Ubuntu Package Status Pages

Leann Ogasawara leann.ogasawara at canonical.com
Thu Sep 4 23:43:09 BST 2008

On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 11:23 +0100, Matt Zimmerman wrote: 
> On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 02:47:19PM -0700, Leann Ogasawara wrote:
> > I just wanted to send out a note that the QA Team has released it's
> > first set of Package Status Pages for the wider audience to view:
> > 
> > http://status.qa.ubuntu.com/
> > 
> > Please let us know if you have any questions, criticisms, or just
> > overall feedback.  It's much appreciated.
> It covers a relatively small subset of packages right now; what do you think
> the criteria should be for adding a new package?

We initially had a criteria that the package needed to have more than
100 bugs reported against it[1].  From that list we then informally
selected a subset of packages to generate status pages for.  It should
be trivial to add new packages.  I wouldn't be opposed to generating
status pages for all the packages that had over 100 bugs reported.
Additionally, I'd like to add packages which people request to be added.

> It seems to serve two purposes: one for the direct benefit of developers
> working on the package (in which case we should be willing to monitor
> additional packages to help them), the other as a means to help people get
> involved where they can make the most difference (in which case we should
> keep the set of packages on the front page small).

I definitely agree we should be willing to monitor packages upon
request.  However, I'm not sure if we should limit the number of
packages reflected on the front page.  I understand the need to steer
potential interested parties to packages that would benefit from extra
attention or where contributions would make more of an impact. However,
I think "hiding" packages from the front page does a disservice to those
hidden packages.  Since we do have the ability to group packages into
categories, I think it would be better to continue listing all the
packages we offer status pages for but additionally maybe provide a "Get
Involved" type of category.  We could then add an explanation of what
this category is intended for in the introductory paragraph (which we
probably need to beef up anyways).  


[1] http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~canonical-qa/canonical-qa-tracking/main/annotate/150?file_id=gt100bugpackages.txt-20080215170433-q6f6v4qipfatvqen-1

More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list