New package review process

[Reinhard Tartler]

Scott Kitterman <ubuntu at kitterman.com> writes:

> STANDARD WORKFLOW:
>
> LP is where needs-packaging bugs are created to document the desire for or 
> intent to package something.
>
> Once someone starts working on a new package, they assign the bug to 
> themselves and set status to In Progress.
>
> Once an initial draft package is uploaded, the URL to the package on REVU is 
> added to the bug in a comment and action switches to REVU. Note:  At UDS 
> siretart and sistypoty hacked on REVU so it will no present a stable URL 
> based on source package name so there is a stable URL to put in the 
> needs-packaging bug.
>
> Review/Comment/Advocacy of the proposed new package will be done on REVU.  
> Once the New package is uploaded (and in the New queue), it is archived on 
> REVU and action returns to LP.
>
> After upload, the needs-packaging bug is set to Fix Committed and then it will 
> automatically get Fix Released is (as it should be) the bug number is in 
> debian/changelog.

Sounds pretty much like what sistpoty and I have been writing up from
the revu-process-convergence BoF:

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Spec/ReviewProcessConvergence

NOTE: This is currently not decided, but is presented for general
discussion. Please read the proposal and comment on it if you have
concerns. One consequence of this proposal is that every NEW package
uploaded to revu should be checked that a needs-packaging bug is being
closed in debian/changelog! (Similar to debian's ITP bugs).

NOTE2: I think Daniel Holbach wanted to have another look at it. Daniel,
can you perhaps follow up with your thoughts on this proposal?

-- 
Gruesse/greetings,
Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 213 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-motu/attachments/20071109/fd5df50b/attachment.pgp