New package review process

[Scott Kitterman]

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 00:16:26 +0100 Reinhard Tartler <siretart at ubuntu.com> 
wrote:
>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?

This is on the agenda for tomorrow's MOTU meeting, so please show up to 
discuss.

This is meant to be what I discussed with everyone I could pin down at UDS. 
 It's not meant to be the grand final vision of reviewing, but an 
improvement that we could implement right now with no tool changes.


Scott K