new poll for MOTU work coordination

Benjamin Montgomery bmontgom at
Sat Feb 18 15:02:28 GMT 2006

Hash: SHA1

Thanks for doing this!  We really need a standardized way to track who
is doing what.

Jordan Mantha wrote:
> no coordination: "If it isn't broke, don't fix it" No changes will be
> made from the current process which I would summarize as using IRC and
> individual wiki pages to follow and coordinate work.
> wiki + bug reports: This would include a wiki page that MOTUs (and
> wannabes) could put current work. Bug reports would be filed and linked
> to this page. This would be one wiki page for merges, syncs, unmet deps,
> FTBFS, etc. [3] is an example of this coordination.

I have to say I really dislike any solution that involves the wiki
pages.  IMO, the using the wiki to track work is slow and inefficient.
If experience with working on breezy is similar to dapper, the wiki page
for unmet deps, for example, will quickly become a large behemoth with
long load times to refresh or edit.  I hope we decide to avoid solutions
that use the wiki.

> bugs + list on : This would involve modifying the code
> on tiber that was used to generate the merge lists to search for some
> string ("motu" ?) in bug report subject lines. This would probably be
> the easiest in terms of use but sistpoty noted that it might be more
> prone to errors. It also involves effort to modify the current code.

I liked the webpage and python scripts that sistpoty and \sh built for
the purpose of going through all of the MoM patches.  If we could use
something similar to this, I think it would work well.

Is there an absolute requirement to track merges or fixing of unmet deps
in Malone?  Do I need to open a bug on a package that only needs a rebuild?

Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -


More information about the Ubuntu-motu mailing list