Proposing MIR process simplification
kirkland at ubuntu.com
Mon Jan 4 14:08:34 GMT 2010
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 5:41 AM, Martin Pitt <martin.pitt at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> both from a reporter's and from a reviewer's point of view my
> perception is that the MIR process involves too much needless
> bureaucracy. What we really want is reporters to go through the
> checklist and discuss the violations of the MIR requirement standards
> in the bug report, not write lengthy wiki pages with boilerplate text
> (especially not for trivial packages like perl bindings).
> So I propose to drop the wiki page reports entirely and just use MIR
> bugs, and discuss the package problems there (as we already do) and
> reduce a MIR to the rationale and a confirmation
> I checked UbuntuMainInclusionRequirements and those were the problems:
> - ...
> I checked that the package meets the UbuntuMainInclusionRequirements.
> I prepared a new process documentation at
> Once it's agreed upon and moves to MainInclusionProcess, the wiki
> template  should be dropped entirely. I just edited the requirement
> checklist  to be up to date wrt. .
> What do you think? Feedback from u-devel@ (in particular from people
> who often write MIRs) is appreciated!
I've written a number of MIRs and I very much support your changes.
I've always found MIR-writing needlessly repetitive, and I've always
found the wiki clumsy for this purpose (LP's ticket-based system seems
far more appropriate). Thanks for taking the initiative and improving
a process that will very much benefit from some reform.
More information about the ubuntu-devel