Future of REVU and Debian Mentors

[Scott Kitterman]

On Monday 30 July 2007 01:50, Jordan Mantha wrote:
> On 7/29/07, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu at kitterman.com> wrote:
> > I was recently subscribed to the debian-mentors mail list (working on
> > getting a package uploaded to Debian) and discovered that the author of
> > the Debian Mentors system is getting ready to overhaul that system.
> >
> > That got me thinking...
> >
> > Why do REVU an mentors need to be separate?
>
> A couple thoughts:
>   1. For a new Ubuntu contributor Debian can be a quite intimidating.
> I remember being quite confused trying to figure out *both* Ubuntu and
> Debian while doing my first package from scratch. Of course this is
> also a big reason to "combine forces" between REVU and debian-mentors,
> *if* it can be pulled off.

That and more reviewers.  The combined tool set would have to help here.

>   2. There are social differences between Ubuntu and Debian as well as
> just the technical ones. It's sometimes easier to maintain our own
> system. We'd need to get by-in from DDs and the current debian-mentors
> maintainers. For instance, who should be allowed to review/sponsor?
> Most MOTUs are not DDs and vice-versa so I can imagine there would be
> quite a bit we'd need to work out.

Yes.  I agree.  I was envisioning that commenters would have to be labled 
Debian Developer or Ubuntu Developer so people would know.  It would also 
require reviewers to understand and respect the social/technical differences.

> > Except for versioning and release, with minor exceptions (like the
> > freeness of GFDL) packages can be made identical for both Debian and
> > Ubuntu.
>
> There is also the issue of native Ubuntu packages. I imagine Debian
> isn't much interested in Ubuntu-specific stuff so we still need to
> deal with those.

True.  Dealing with Ubuntu specific stuff would have to be managed.  Uploaders 
would (generally) have to have a way of indicating if the package was 
intended for Debian, Ubuntu, or both.

> > I could see up pooling resources on reviewing new packages and if a MOTU
> > thought a package was ready to upload, then they could upload it and if a
> > DD thought a package was ready, they could sponsor it.  We'd have to deal
> > with version/release, but I'd imagine it could be programmed in.
>
> This is a really interesting suggestion, in fact I don't know why it
> hasn't been suggested before. Perhaps because it would take a large
> amount of Debian/Ubuntu cooperation and we tend to separate packages
> into Debian packages and Ubuntu packages. It also seems to me that
> quite a number of contributors to REVU don't really want to deal with
> Debian, as it is more work for a distro they don't use.

Yes, but IMO they should.  Working stuff back into Debian makes for a stronger 
Ubuntu in the long run.  Additionally, I view it as an ethical obligation.  
As I understand it that's ~ sabdfl's position too.

> I personally tend to think that with our resources we are better off
> really encouraging people to put their packages through Debian unless
> it is Ubuntu-specific. I found debian-mentors to be very helpful and
> getting a package into Debian fairly easy, once I figured out how
> things worked. I think working on "How does an Ubuntu user/contributor
> get their package into Debian?" would benefit MOTU/Universe. Also
> figuring out how to get Debian to "take on" packages created by Ubuntu
> users. I know several cases where a contributor wanted to get the
> package into Ubuntu rather than Debian because they didn't want to be
> the Debian maintainer.

Well team maintenance seems to be growing in Debian.  If it's Python or Perl 
they don't have to maintain it.  There are teams for that.

For Python I wrote:

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ContributingToDebian/PythonModulesTeam

And more generally there is:

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ContributingToDebian/

I think better documentation and pushing contributors towards Debian are good 
interim steps.

Scott K