Proposal for revised REVU workflow

Morten Kjeldgaard mok at
Sat Jan 24 23:39:44 GMT 2009

On 24/01/2009, at 23.25, Scott Kitterman wrote:

> Could we call the first stage something other than "New"?   New  
> already has
> a specific meaning in the archive and I think it'd be better not to
> overload the term.
> How about "Unreviewed"?

I have no problem with this, and suggestions for good, descriptive  
names of the various stages of the process is most welcome. I have  
edited the document to reflect ScottK's suggestion.

> If I understand your proposal correctly, the primary change is to  
> segregate
> packages that have never been looked at and packages that were  
> advocated at
> some point from packages that have been reviewed, but have never had  
> an
> advocate.  Is that right?

Yes, exactly.

> I can see some potential for benifit with this.  It does sound like  
> you are
> proposing a manual step of marking a package off the "New" list.  I  
> think
> this should be automatic.

It was my intention to state that a MOTU can go to the "Unreviewed"  
list, deposit a review, and the package would automatically be  
promoted to the "In Process" list. I have added the word "automatic"   
to the description, making that clearer.



Morten Kjeldgaard <mok0 at>
Ubuntu MOTU Developer
GPG Key ID: 404825E7

More information about the Ubuntu-motu mailing list