REVU, #ubuntu-packaging, and mentors.debian.org
scott at open-vote.org
Sat Dec 10 19:41:10 UTC 2011
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
>> 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.
More information about the ubuntu-devel