NEW Packages process

Stefan Potyra stefan.potyra at informatik.uni-erlangen.de
Wed Apr 16 12:09:24 BST 2008


Hi,

On Wednesday 16 April 2008 12:07:46 Daniel Holbach wrote:
> Stefan Potyra schrieb:
> > 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.
>
> Maybe the right fix for this the situation is to establish an easy way to
>  - solicit feedback about a packaging situation one is unsure about

Maybe I don't understand what you are meaning: I thought reviewing was that 
feedback?

>  - document the "best way to solve problem X" either in
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/CodeReviews or
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PackagingGuide

Having recipes, how to solve a problem is imho orthogonal to the question of 
reviewing. It's good to be able to point people to these, if they have 
questions on how to do it, but in my experience, that's not the problem when 
reviewing a package. Also, from my experience, usually many different 
solution to a problem X exist, so I guess saying that there is a "best" way 
might even result in reviewers stating s.th. like: "do it that way", even if 
it's equally right to be done differently. (cdbs vs. plain debhelper for 
example).

(Side note: since when became the guideline criteria in CodeReviews stable? 
There used to be a note stating that these are not stable and links to the ml 
discussion in the wiki page which are gone now).

>
> I can see a number of additional benefits in this solution.
>
> > 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.
>
> Also in this case a feedback loop would help to educate the whole team.

Do you mean feedback loop from ubuntu-archive to reviewers? Yes, that would be 
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/b446beed/attachment.pgp 


More information about the Ubuntu-motu mailing list