NEW Packages process

Stefan Potyra stefan.potyra at
Wed Apr 16 12:22:51 BST 2008


On Wednesday 16 April 2008 12:31:59 James Westby wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-04-16 at 11:38 +0200, Stefan Potyra wrote:
> > 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.
> Hi,
> Do you think that this could perhaps be because some people don't
> review the package as thoroughly as they know that someone else will
> look at it first?

From my experience: No, I don't think that people were less thorough with a 
review just because someone else would look at a package, but rather ...

> Increasing the quality of reviews is great, but just having a second
> reviewer doesn't necessarily guarantee that. As well as each reviewer
> knowing that someone else will look, the responsibility is diluted.
> If I were to miss something in a review when I was the only reviewer
> then it would be my omission, but with two reviewers both missed it, so
> it's not really one persons fault.

... yes, exactly.

-------------- 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 : 

More information about the Ubuntu-motu mailing list