Request For Candidates: Application Review Board

[Scott Kitterman]

On Friday, August 13, 2010 05:21:57 pm Rick Spencer wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-08-10 at 10:47 +0200, Michael Bienia wrote:
> > On 2010-08-09 17:53:09 -0400, Elliot Murphy wrote:
> > > However, I believe the new process will be easier to market to
> > > application developers that we definitely need to be winning over, and
> > > the flowchart (subjectively, when I imagine explaining this to an app
> > > developer that I'm trying to win over) feels less clunky than going
> > > into the dev release and then immediately into backports. It also
> > > prevents the app developer from needing to run the development release
> > > of Ubuntu, instead they can stay on a stable foundation and focus
> > > exclusively on building the app without worrying about the platform
> > > shifting beneath their feet from day to day. I love running the dev
> > > version of Ubuntu, but I've seen it stress out upstream app developers
> > > over and over when they just want to focus on building their app
> > > without thinking about libraries or desktop changing underneath them.
> 
> This point about libraries is a key point. Applications that change
> underlying libraries will not be eligible for new apps. Thus, if they
> don't work, they just don't work, they won't break other components. At
> UDS we called these "leaf node" applications.
> 
> Also, applications that are too complicated to assess easily can be
> rejected for that reason alone. So medium and large apps will probably
> not be appropriate, since they will take too much effort to review, and
> would be more appropriate for universe or such.
> 
> These are two ways that the review process will be much "lighter".
> 
> > Some points are not yet clear to me in this process:
> > - will those packages end in the "main" archive or a seperate one (like
> > 
> >   "partner")? or will they stay in a PPA?
> 
> It's a separate archive just for this.
> 
> > - how do updates of those packages work? which process is to follow?
> > 
> >   this one or SRU or a different one?
> 
> If you want to update an app that is already in this repo, you go
> through the process again, the updated app needs to be re-reviewed.
> 
> > - who is responsible for the forward porting of the application to the
> > 
> >   next Ubuntu release? And will this happen while the next Ubuntu
> >   release is still in development or only once it got released and the
> >   app developer re-applies to get his app added to this new Ubuntu
> >   release too?
> 
> I answered this in a different reply, but I'll copy my answer here for
> completeness.
> <copy>
> I don't think anyone is specifically responsible for ensuring that
> applications go into the current development release.. Maverick will be
> the first release where we are using this process, so we will learn a
> lot and tweak the process as needed to improve it. For example, if a
> path that includes both the stable release and the development release
> is deemed required, we can add such as a path.
> 
> It's not necessarily granted that an application written for a stable
> release is relevant for future releases. For example, an application
> "Super Bowl 2010" may only be relevant for the 10.10 release. Or perhaps
> the application provides functionality which is built into another core
> app in the development version, etc...
> </copy>
> 
> > And do I understand it correctly that applications which need yet
> > unpackaged libraries are not eligible for this process?
> 
> In general I assume that would be correct.
> 
> Cheers, Rick

One question I've missed an answer to is how packaging is supposed to be 
easier in this new process.  I understand that, since these are leaf packages, 
not libraries, etc., these may be easier packages than some others, but what I 
don't understand is how packaging for this new target is easier or simpler 
than packaging the same application for Ubuntu?  I'm not trying to be hostile 
here, I just don't understand how what's proposed meets the stated goal.

Scott K