NEW Packages process

Daniel Holbach daniel.holbach at
Wed Apr 16 12:28:20 BST 2008

Hash: SHA1

Cesare Tirabassi schrieb:
> If the purpose of this proposal is to reduce the idle time for new packages in 
> the REVU queue than I think there are better ways, the best imho would be to 
> make it more attractive for devs to actually review new packages.

In an IRC conversation some days ago it was Colin Watson who said "every
item of bureaucracy should be justified" - this got me thinking about
this process as we hear a lot of frustration about it.

How do we justify "this needs two reviewers - we don't trust one of them
to do it right"? Is the quality of packaging our main concern? Which
parts are we most concerned about?

Please decide on your own how common a situation like this is on REVU:
 - comment by a MOTU: "Could you add a watch file? Please move Homepage
URL to its own Homepage field.", no ACK
 - two weeks of inactivity
 - upload archived
 - some days later: new upload fixing the issues
 - ...
 - maybe an ACK, maybe not

I'm convinced that fixes (fixing the Homepage field, bumping up the
Standards-Version, etc) above are written quickly once the package is in
the archive and should not block an upload. We are a distributed team
which maintains packages in the team and round-trips because of such
things merely add frustration.

It all boils down to the question: "Why don't we trust one MOTU to get
it right?"

Have a nice day,

- --
My 5 today: #210449 (network-manager-applet), #218074, #215043,
#205756 (gnome-subtitles), #149677 (svn-load, subversion-helper-
Do 5 a day - every day!
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -


More information about the Ubuntu-motu mailing list