Request For Candidates: Application Review Board

[Scott Kitterman]

On Friday, August 13, 2010 07:14:48 pm Rick Spencer wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 17:59 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> I don't know that there are different packaging requirements per se,
> I'll have to leave that to one of the technical implementors to answer.
> 
> I think it's more that the whole process is easier from the view point
> of the target user (who in this case is a potential application
> developer). Get your app into a PPA (which is easy if you use Quickly),
> ask for it to be reviewed, it shows up in software center on the stable
> release.
> 
> Also, they're not just leaf node apps, they are also simple apps, so
> easier to review, but I don't think that was part of your question.
> 
The current process for that would be upload your package to REVU (same 
process as upload to a PPA), get your package reviewed, and ask for a backport 
after it's in.  So the difference, AFAICT is not having to ask for the 
backport.  OTOH, if an application developer wants their application to 
actually be in Ubuntu and for more than a single release, they've got to go 
through the regular process too.

So modulo staffing differences, I can see that the proposed process to get into a 
single release is slightly simpler.  I think it would be possible to 
accommodate this through minor alterations of existing processes.  It still 
seems odd to me to be avoiding the current process rather than trying to work 
with it.

Scott K