REVU, #ubuntu-packaging, and mentors.debian.org

[Scott Ritchie]

On 11/28/2011 10:20 AM, Allison Randal wrote:
> On 11/14/2011 08:43 AM, Daniel Holbach wrote:
>> Am 14.11.2011 17:36, schrieb Scott Kitterman:
>>> On 11/14/2011 11:21 AM, Allison Randal wrote:
>>>> I'll propose a compromise: how about we remove REVU from the
>>>> documentation for new packagers, so we're not pointing people there
>>>> first anymore. The MOTU/core-dev who are still using REVU for package
>>>> reviews can keep using it, they'll just tell their mentorees to go there.
>>>
>>> It's not a compromise at all.  I think it's the correct solution.
>>>
>>> Existence of a tool doesn't create expectations, it the documentation 
>>> around it.  Update that and problem solved.
>>

Existence of a tool does create an expectation: you expect it to be
minimally useful for its stated purpose.  It's like creating a search
button that always returns "no results found" and then saying that the
proper way to search is to not use it in the documentation.

>> I personally don't object to people still using it for their own
>> purposes, even if PPAs (I know they suffer from the same-version problem
>> mentioned earlier), VCSes and other tools do a similar job.
>>
>> If that's the general concensus, maybe we should also add a piece of
>> text on REVU itself? The other pages I know that would need updating
>> would be https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Packages/REVU and
>> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/NewPackages
>>
>> Any others?
> 
> It seems like we've reached a good conclusion. I'll leave this standing
> for another week for any further comments, and then will start working
> on editing the documentation.
> 

If you're going to leave REVU up, you need to make it very clear that
it's neglected within the REVU submission interface itself.

Thanks,
Scott Ritchie