Tim Teulings wrote:
>> Except how do you try to prevent abuse (whether intentional or
>> accidental)? At least with the version number you've got some safety
>> check (although it is in no way comprehensive). It also requires more
>> changes at more levels (I bet), so harder to implement.
>
> I think it is time to decide (again?) if we trust developers in their
> atempt to get their software/package into extras or not.
Currently, we trust ten random testers rather than one well-known
developer.
Why could not we trust well-known developers who have track record
of producing high-enough quality software? They may have their own
methods for testing, like couple of active and skilful dedicated testers
for the application domain. I see that more trustful than those random
testers who vote subjectively based on their opinions of an user interface.
We could have a group of accredited developers who have access to
the Extras. They are committed to release only validated and verified
packages. When a new developer wants to upload a package of his own, an
accredited developer could sponsor him, i.e. act like a gatekeeper.
Sounds familiar? See Debian New Maintainers Process [1].
Another possibility is to have the team of accredited testers, who
can make the final decision of their own. To become an accredited tester
required commiting to write sane bug reports and to make decisions on
generally agreed checks, among others. Then there would not be a need
for ten random strangers and ten day delays.
BR,
Henrik
[1] http://www.debian.org/devel/join/newmaint.en.html
--
Henrik Hedberg - http://www.henrikhedberg.net/
_______________________________________________
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
