NEW Packages process

Stefan Potyra stefan.potyra at informatik.uni-erlangen.de
Wed Apr 16 10:38:19 BST 2008


Hi,

On Wednesday 16 April 2008 10:45:22 Daniel Holbach wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
> after a recent discussion about a perceived disconnect between "main
> processes" and "universe processes", I thought a bit about the process
> for NEW Packages.
>
> Historically it was introduced to make sure that new packages are of
> tip-top quality when they enter the archive. We started with 3 necessary
> ACKs and changed it to 2 ACKs for non-MOTUs and encouraged MOTUs to get
> an ACK from other MOTUs. I feel we've been very successful with the work
> we've put into Universe and the quality of new packages.
>
> I propose the following changes:
>  1) cut down the requirement to one ACK of a ubuntu-dev member

I don't think, that's a good idea. 

One argument against it raised in the past is, that this might lead to fewer 
people reviewing a package (or giving an ACK for a package), as they might be 
unsure about it. Actually, I believe that reviewing a package is actually a 
more difficult task then to create a new package from scratch, and so I think 
that this argument might still be true.

As I've often cherrypicked reviews in the past (that is reviewed packages, 
which had one ACK already), and very often found issues with these, I fear 
that the package quality might get worse, and the rejection count from 
ubuntu-archive might increase. Now I wouldn't think, that I'm a so good 
reviewer, but rather that this is basically just, because different people 
spot different issues in packages.

Overall, I believe we should encourage non-motus to go for reviews, now that 
anyone can comment on REVU to weed out basic packaging problems. The only 
downside to this is imho, that sometimes pseudo-knowledge starts to spread 
about issues of a package (I've seen wrong comments in the past, which got 
picked up by other reviewers and got commented to other packages. I'd need to 
look a little bit, to find concrete examples of this happening though).

>  2) requirement for the person who packaged the new software to become
> bug contact

Yes, that sounds very good!

Cheers,
     Stefan.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-motu/attachments/20080416/a2d9c93e/attachment.pgp 


More information about the Ubuntu-motu mailing list