NEW Packages process

[Scott Kitterman]

On Wednesday 16 April 2008 08:59, Daniel Holbach wrote:
> Scott Kitterman schrieb:
> > I did in fact upload some packages
> > with comment on stuff that ought to be fixed in the next revision.
>
> That sounds to me like a good solution.

But only one where the contributor is known and is in my opinion reliable 
about coming back to do it.  There's nothing in current policy that prohibits 
it and so MOTUs can, to the extent they feel comfortable, do it now.  They 
can also fix the trivialities and upload if they care to.

There is a tension in the new package process between teaching about packaging 
and getting new packages in.  If all we care about was getting new packages 
in, we'd take the 5 minutes it takes to fix up the details and upload, but we 
don't just care about that, so we pitch it back to the contributor to fix so 
they learn better.  This is sometimes frustrating for the student, but that's 
part of the learning process.

> > In general, the only thing missing in you scenario was the MOTU
> > advocating after the fixed upload.  Of course your scenario also didn't
> > include the contributor ping the MOTU on irc/email saying 'I've fixed
> > your issues, please look again and see if it's ready.'
>
> I believe there are a lot of cases where REVU uploads are "triaged" (as
> part of the long long list) and simply comment on the few obvious things
> that could be improved. If the MOTU felt empowered to make the decision
> right now and not leave the upload waiting for another ACK we would come
> down to high-quality reviews quicker.

True.  When I do that, I also make it clear that I haven't done a full review.  

The issue isn't that people don't feel like doing a careful review, it's that 
they often don't have sufficient experience.  Before going further with this 
idea, you might check with the archive admins and see how they feel about 
having to look at packages with even less reviewing.

> > We get a lot of drive by packagers who
> > really won't come back and fix it.
>
> Right, that happens and is a problem. I'm just not sure how the NEW
> packages process can make them more interested in packaging and
> maintaining.
>
> >> It all boils down to the question: "Why don't we trust one MOTU to get
> >> it right?"
> >
> > Because historically they don't (myself included).
>
> What can we do to
>  - strengthen the culture of "clean up after breaking stuff"
>  - make it easier to spot real problems? (I don't see much public
> discussion about things we've learned or much exchange of information.)

For the first point, I'd suggest pointing people at the mess and tell them 
it's their responsibility to clean it up is generally enough.  After a few 
times they generally get the idea.

For the second, I think it's pretty common when I'm active on IRC, but those 
times don't seem to overlap much with yours.

> > It occurs to me that if you really believe that the new package process
> > should be the same as the sponsorship process, then you ought to discuss
> > eliminating manual New review with the archive admins.
>
> I mentioned a "higher similarity" between the processes, but we won't
> get around an archive admin review.

Agreed. My real point is that they are in fact different for good reasons and 
those reasons haven't changed.

> > It's very
> > frustrating after having finally gotten your package uploaded to have to
> > wait for two seperate and sequential New reviews.
>
> Do you mean source new and binary new or do I miss something here?

Yes.  That was it.

Scott K