NEW Packages process

[Stephan Hermann]

Hi,

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:28:20 +0200
Daniel Holbach <daniel.holbach at ubuntu.com> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 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.

from whom?

> 
> 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?

Actually, the problem between reviewing and NEW packages are:

1. Reviewing takes time, time which is not invested in merging,
bugfixing etc. the usual work to be done during the first weeks of
development. 
2. Even with two or more people acking a package on REVU, after it's
uploaded, most people who were providing those packages to REVU are
disappearing just because: task accomplished, package is in the archive.
There is no bug contact for this package, even if there is a name to it
on the LP page.

> 
> 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
> 

Two differences:

1. ubuntu-dev people uploading new packages to the archive, are taking
care about them, even after the upload. It's incoorporated into the
normal work
2. non-ubuntu-dev people and people which are not interested in
becoming a MOTU but wants to push their packages into our archives, are
not taking care about the package after upload, because of the MOTU.

So, when we are reviewing the package, and asking for fixing the
package because of public viewable bugs inside the packaging, and the
revu-uploader is not bugfixing the package in time, I won't think about
it anymore...and hopefully the package just disappears. 




> 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.

Not from the initial revu uploader...this needs to be done by MOTU
people, which decreases the time for other, sometimes more important,
work.

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

Because MOTUs are human beings, and I trust 2 pairs of eyes more then
only my pair of eyes. Even old fart MOTUs are asking sometimes for a
review of another colleague, even when they are good packaging people
and trusted deeply :)

Regards,

\sh