NEW Packages process

[William Grant]

Daniel Holbach wrote:
> [snip]
> 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.

... how exactly do single-person impulse decisions improve the quality
of reviews?

>> 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.

Showing them that it's fine to upload buggy packages is not going to
make them more interested.

>>> 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"

I'd prefer to strengthen the culture of "not breaking things in the
first place." Uploading known-buggy packages seems to violate this.

I am thoroughly against this proposal. Although I haven't given too many
reviews, for each I have found issues that thorough review by the
previous acks. No single person can pick up everything.

What's wrong with having more eyes on a package initially? Fixing things
before upload is good, particularly if it tests the patience of the
contributor. They need patience, or they'll do a drive-by NEW package,
which we really, *really* don't need.

-- 
William Grant

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-motu/attachments/20080416/036818ae/attachment.pgp