REVU - Cleanup of the "Needs Review" section
siretart at ubuntu.com
Sun Nov 2 07:43:49 GMT 2008
James Westby <jw+debian at jameswestby.net> writes:
> If you are concerned about a large number of items in the list then we
> should consider expiration, but I don't think this is the right way to
> do it.
> It does give a bad impression to new contributors though, as they may
> not understand why their package is not being looked at.
Expiration leaves the users exatly here: Not understanding why their
package is not being looked at.
Technically, revu really *needs* some expiration mechanism for disk
space reasons, and what Siegfried is proposing sounds pretty similar to
that to me.
I think we should be honest: We don't have enough manpower to process
the revu queue. The queue is processed on a best-efford basis, and if a
contributor does not find a sponsor by other means (like advertising it
on our irc channel, etc) there is a good possibility for the package to
be ignored. I consider expiration in the way Siegfried is proposing it
as a way of implementing this.
Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4
More information about the Ubuntu-motu