Proposal for revised REVU workflow
mok at bioxray.au.dk
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
> 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
> advocate. Is that right?
> 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
> 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.com>
Ubuntu MOTU Developer
GPG Key ID: 404825E7
More information about the Ubuntu-motu