Default reviewer for Ubuntu merge proposals?

[James Westby]

On Wed Dec 09 08:01:51 +0000 2009 Emmet Hikory wrote:
>     As a medium-term solution for a default, this seems reasonable.
> As we continue with the process of migrating to a variety of teams
> closely supporting various package sets, I think it would make sense
> to try to set the default reviewer for a merge proposal for a package
> based some analysis of which package sets contain that package.

Which LP team would you choose for an arbitrary package that has:

  * zero or more teams able to upload due to it's membership in a set.
  * zero or more teams able to upload due to per-package upload rights.
  * core-dev able to upload.

(where I'm using LP's equivalence of teams and single people).

I see this as an insoluble problem because we do not have per-package
upload teams.

>     I don't think it should be the resppnsibility of a merge requestor
> to try to identify the best team,

Agreed.

> and I fear that extended use of a
> single large team including many people who cannot actually complete
> the requested merge will repeat the confusion we had back in the
> Breezy timeframe (IIRC) regarding sponsorship,

What sort of confusion?

> Where a package
> has been determined not to belong to a package set (either directly or
> through invalidation of narrow sets as indicated above), the use of
> the generic ubuntu-reviewers team seems reasonable,

Why ubuntu-reviewers?

> The least-well-served by this model would be
> per-package-uploaders not participating in a group, but my suspicion
> is that those with such specific interests are likely to be keeping a
> close watch on packages for which they have upload permission, and so
> may be able to make do with some mechanism to autosubscribe to merge
> requests for the (small) set of brances of interest.

There is already such a mechanism. Subscription is orthoganal to the
default reviewer. In your model per-package-uploaders would not be
able to claim the default review on packages they have upload rights
for, which, as they are the most likely to review, seems not ideal.

Thanks,

James