review tool for new packages (was: Temporary REVU package storage)

[Cesare Tirabassi]

Dear all,

I have been pondering this for some time now.

I have a sympathy with Scott and Barry; I have seen myself that quite
often people misuse REVU and the people that are volunteering their
effort to get new packages in Ubuntu.

Unfortunately, I have also been using myself REVU as a contributor, and
I found it a very efficient learning tool.

Thanks to REVU and the people that reviewed my packages (you know who
you are guys, I still can't thank you enough) I have learned quite a lot
that perhaps I would not have learnt, or it would have taken me much
longer to learn, either on my own or working through countless
sync/merge/bitesize/ftbfs and unmetdepds bug reports.

For me the real question is: 

how can we keep a useful review tool (it being REVU or LP or whatever)
and at the same time ensure that the quality of the packages being
reviewed is above a certain basic standard and that only packagers that
have a real interest to submit and follow up are allowed to do so?

Personally, I only see as a solution that of changing the
ubuntu-universe-contributors team participation from an open to a
restricted one.
Only contributors that can show a minimum level of competence as well as
a continued interested in Ubuntu and packaging should be allowed to join
this team, and therefore contribute new packages to universe.

Note that these contributors will effectively also become filters,
through which, under their responsability, everybody would still be able
to upload new packages for review.

Cesare

PS. As you may know I'm a new-kid-on-the-block, so, apologies in advance
if my thoughts have already been eviscerated to death previously.

On Sat, 2007-08-18 at 11:06 -0400, Barry deFreese wrote:
> Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >
> > On a related note, I really don't think we need to make it easier to submit 
> > packages.  There were already far more packages uploaded than we have MOTUs 
> > (or hopefuls) to properly review.  Many of these packages were completely 
> > uncared for by the person that uploaded them.  In mid-July I went through 
> > REVU and commented on every package that hadn't been touched since May (6 
> > weeks) and asked if uploaders were still interested (it was several dozen, 
> > but I don't have the exact number) and got exactly one reply.
> >
> > More efficient/effective review tools are where our bottleneck is. 
> >
> I have to agree with Scott here for the most part.  You have to remember 
> that "community" development works both ways.  It's mighty easy to throw 
> a package up on REVU/LP/wherever and walk away.  It's another thing to 
> get it packaged properly, make sure it meets Debian/Ubuntu standards wrt 
> to licensing, packaging, dependencies, etc.  Starting with Edgy+ I was 
> trying my best to keep up with REVU and it could be a full time job in 
> itself.  Many of the packages don't even make sense for the 
> distribution.  They tend to be someones pet package who just think it 
> would be cool to see their name attached to some package in Ubuntu.
> 

All dwarfs have beards and wear up to twelve layers of clothing. Gender
is more or less optional. (Guards! Guards!)