REVU: Automated Package Checks

[Scott Kitterman]

On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 20:04:55 -0600 Nathan Handler <nhandler at ubuntu.com> 
wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 7:42 PM, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu at kitterman.com> 
wrote:
>> I think it's fine to mention, but I wouldn't want the package rejected 
or knocked into some
>> kind of needs work state as a result.
>
>That brings up another interesting point. Which checks should result
>in the package entering the Needs Work list? Most of the issues that
>would be checked for are minor things by themselves, and probably
>should not be in the Needs Work list. However, I feel that a package
>that has a lot of minor issues with it should go in that list. Maybe
>we could have a counter that keeps track of the number of issues
>detected with the package during the automatic checks. If more than a
>certain number of issues are detected, the package is sent to the
>Needs Work list (with a comment). Otherwise, only a comment is added.
>This would prevent a package that passes all of the checks except the
>needs-packaging bug check from being sent to the Needs Work list, but
>the uploader will still be told that they should close a
>needs-packaging bug in their changelog entry.

I'd suggest the automatically generated list be exposed on the package page 
on revu so that a MOTU doing a review can quickly look at the list and 
judge if the package is mature enough for a detailed review.  If it's not, 
they can easily leave a comment like "1, 2, and 4 really need to be fixed 
before the package gets a detailed review.  3 is nice to have and add a 
lintian override for 5.  It's OK as is."

Scott K