-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello everybody,
after a recent discussion about a perceived disconnect between main
processes and universe processes, I thought a bit about the process
for NEW Packages.
Historically it was introduced to make sure that new packages are of
tip-top
Daniel Holbach wrote:
- higher similarity between NEW Packages process and Sponsoring process
I see no reason why they shouldn't be completely identical, really.
Thanks,
Scott Ritchie
--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stefan Potyra schrieb:
One argument against it raised in the past is, that this might lead to fewer
people reviewing a package (or giving an ACK for a package), as they might be
unsure about it.
Maybe the right fix for this the situation is to
Hi,
On Wednesday 16 April 2008 10:45:22 Daniel Holbach wrote:
Hello everybody,
after a recent discussion about a perceived disconnect between main
processes and universe processes, I thought a bit about the process
for NEW Packages.
Historically it was introduced to make sure that new
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
James Westby schrieb:
Increasing the quality of reviews is great, but just having a second
reviewer doesn't necessarily guarantee that.
Agreed.
Stefan said in his last mail that we should not upset the archive
admins. I very much agree with his
On Wed, 2008-04-16 at 11:38 +0200, Stefan Potyra wrote:
One argument against it raised in the past is, that this might lead to fewer
people reviewing a package (or giving an ACK for a package), as they might be
unsure about it. Actually, I believe that reviewing a package is actually a
more
On Wednesday 16 April 2008 11:38:19 Stefan Potyra wrote:
I propose the following changes:
1) cut down the requirement to one ACK of a ubuntu-dev member
I don't think, that's a good idea.
I'm with Stefan here, from personal experience as a packager and reviewer one
ACK is almost never
Hi,
On Wednesday 16 April 2008 12:07:46 Daniel Holbach wrote:
Stefan Potyra schrieb:
One argument against it raised in the past is, that this might lead to
fewer people reviewing a package (or giving an ACK for a package), as
they might be unsure about it.
Maybe the right fix for this
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Cesare Tirabassi schrieb:
If the purpose of this proposal is to reduce the idle time for new packages
in
the REVU queue than I think there are better ways, the best imho would be to
make it more attractive for devs to actually review new
Hi,
On Wednesday 16 April 2008 12:31:59 James Westby wrote:
On Wed, 2008-04-16 at 11:38 +0200, Stefan Potyra wrote:
One argument against it raised in the past is, that this might lead to
fewer people reviewing a package (or giving an ACK for a package), as
they might be unsure about it.
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 10:45:22 +0200 Daniel Holbach
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello everybody,
after a recent discussion about a perceived disconnect between main
processes and universe processes, I thought a bit about the process
for NEW Packages.
Hi,
On Wednesday 16 April 2008 12:48:35 Daniel Holbach wrote:
[..]
Bugs that might have been overlooked in the initial review are very
likely to be fixed quickly in the normal sponsoring process. Having
people as a bug contact for the package will help with that too.
No, I very much doubt
On Wednesday 16 April 2008 13:28:20 Daniel Holbach wrote:
How do we justify this needs two reviewers - we don't trust one of them
to do it right?
It all boils down to the question: Why don't we trust one MOTU to get
it right?
Its not a question of trust, its a question that 4 eyes see
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stefan Potyra schrieb:
Maybe I don't understand what you are meaning: I thought reviewing was that
feedback?
To me it sounds like a major problem is uncertainty of ubuntu-dev
members who are about to ACK a package. This is understandable because
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stefan Potyra schrieb:
No, I very much doubt that actually. Once a package leaves revu, usually
packaging bugs are not fixed afterwards (contrary to application bugs). From
the very early days I can recall one example, where I used to heavily
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Cesare Tirabassi schrieb:
Its not a question of trust, its a question that 4 eyes see better than 2. I
know I don't rely on my packaging skills alone, no matter how much I work I
will always miss something.
Right. That happens to upstreams,
Hi,
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:28:20 +0200
Daniel Holbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Cesare Tirabassi schrieb:
If the purpose of this proposal is to reduce the idle time for new
packages in the REVU queue than I think there are better ways, the
On Wednesday 16 April 2008 08:06, Daniel Holbach wrote:
Stefan Potyra schrieb:
...
Having recipes, how to solve a problem is imho orthogonal to the question
of reviewing. It's good to be able to point people to these, if they have
questions on how to do it, but in my experience, that's not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Scott Kitterman schrieb:
I did in fact upload some packages
with comment on stuff that ought to be fixed in the next revision.
That sounds to me like a good solution.
In general, the only thing missing in you scenario was the MOTU advocating
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 9:40 AM, Daniel Holbach [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Cesare Tirabassi schrieb:
Its not a question of trust, its a question that 4 eyes see better than
2. I
know I don't rely on my packaging skills alone, no matter how much
On Wednesday 16 April 2008 08:59, Daniel Holbach wrote:
Scott Kitterman schrieb:
I did in fact upload some packages
with comment on stuff that ought to be fixed in the next revision.
That sounds to me like a good solution.
But only one where the contributor is known and is in my opinion
Daniel Holbach wrote:
[snip]
I believe there are a lot of cases where REVU uploads are triaged (as
part of the long long list) and simply comment on the few obvious things
that could be improved. If the MOTU felt empowered to make the decision
right now and not leave the upload waiting for
Daniel Holbach writes:
2) requirement for the person who packaged the new software to become
bug contact
Cesare Tirabassi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I thought that was the norm ...
I agree that this is a very good idea, but I don't rememer if or when we
did make that a requirement.
Hi,
On Wednesday 16 April 2008 14:06:59 Daniel Holbach wrote:
[..]
(Side note: since when became the guideline criteria in CodeReviews
stable? There used to be a note stating that these are not stable and
links to the ml discussion in the wiki page which are gone now).
Can you elaborate?
Disclaimer: I am not a MOTU, but rather just a fresh, minor
contributor since Ubuntu Hardy. So I can give my point of view from
the other part of the fence.
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 3:14 PM, Scott Kitterman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is a tension in the new package process between teaching
On Wednesday 16 April 2008 09:51, Daniel Holbach wrote:
Scott Kitterman schrieb:
On Wednesday 16 April 2008 08:15, Daniel Holbach wrote:
I personally ask and have seen others actively asking for changes to
patches if they were not ready to go yet. (Be it packaging problems,
policy
Reinhard Tartler wrote:
* for NEW packages, there is obviously no LP entry yet.
Actually there is, just after the package hits NEW. And you can at that point
subscribe to bug mail, so this shouldn't be an issue.
Emilio
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
Ubuntu-motu
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:08:10 +0200
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Reinhard Tartler wrote:
* for NEW packages, there is obviously no LP entry yet.
Actually there is, just after the package hits NEW. And you can at
that point subscribe to bug mail, so this shouldn't be an
IMHO there are many good reasons to maintain the 2 ACK requirement for new
packages.
As someone who has contributed several packages through the REVU system, I
admit that I was initially frustrated with the slow and circumstantial
reviewing procedure. However, the advantage of the system
Stephan Hermann wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:08:10 +0200
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Reinhard Tartler wrote:
* for NEW packages, there is obviously no LP entry yet.
Actually there is, just after the package hits NEW. And you can at
that point subscribe to bug mail, so
This is another response from the beginner packager's POV. When I first
submitted my package, probably four or five different people looked at it,
and every one of them found something different to comment on. The process
was fairly nerve-wracking and I lost some sleep since I was close to the
Stephan Hermann wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:52:45 +0200
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway, should I see a package for which the packager says he won't
look at it anymore when it hits the archive because it's not his
duty, I won't upload it. With those arguments, it's
I'm no MOTU and just speak from a newbie uploader's perspective.
Daniel Holbach wrote :
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stefan Potyra schrieb:
One argument against it raised in the past is, that this might lead to fewer
people reviewing a package (or giving an ACK for a
Daniel Holbach wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello everybody,
after a recent discussion about a perceived disconnect between main
processes and universe processes, I thought a bit about the process
for NEW Packages.
Well, just to be clear, there is no disconnect
On Wednesday 16 April 2008 13:07, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
So I think mailing lintian's output to the uploader would be a good idea.
And ideally that would be against source and binaries, at least for the
first upload... although that would place a high load on REVU's host. But
maybe
On Wednesday 16 April 2008 13:17, Jordan Mantha wrote:
Daniel Holbach wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello everybody,
after a recent discussion about a perceived disconnect between main
processes and universe processes, I thought a bit about the process
for
Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Wednesday 16 April 2008 13:07, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
So I think mailing lintian's output to the uploader would be a good idea.
And ideally that would be against source and binaries, at least for the
first upload... although that would place a high load on
Hi,
Am Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:45:31 -0500
schrieb Justin Dugger [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 11:20 AM, Stephan Hermann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
We need a barrier, to not let all software into Ubuntu, which will
only live for a couple of months.
On the contrary, while I
2008/4/16, Stefan Potyra [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
hm... that's tough. Well, there is lintian, but not all of lintian output is
always correct for each source package (that's why you can override parts of
it). So the tricky part here is: What to do with the result of a package
checker? (should it
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So I think mailing lintian's output to the uploader would be a good idea. And
ideally that would be against source and binaries, at least for the first
upload... although that would place a high load on REVU's host.
Please be assured that the
Hi,
Am Mittwoch 16 April 2008 22:34:34 schrieb Soren Hansen:
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 07:40:48PM +0200, Stefan Potyra wrote:
Autobuilding: autobuilding is basically handing out a root shell on
the box, so this won't happen.
I hear virtualisation is all the rage these days.
Bah...
On Wednesday 16 April 2008 17:19, Stefan Potyra wrote:
Hi,
Am Mittwoch 16 April 2008 22:34:34 schrieb Soren Hansen:
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 07:40:48PM +0200, Stefan Potyra wrote:
Autobuilding: autobuilding is basically handing out a root shell on
the box, so this won't happen.
I
Hi,
Am Wed, 16 Apr 2008 22:34:34 +0200
schrieb Soren Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 07:40:48PM +0200, Stefan Potyra wrote:
Autobuilding: autobuilding is basically handing out a root shell on
the box, so this won't happen.
I hear virtualisation is all the rage these
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 02:40:51PM +0200, Daniel Holbach wrote:
If I submitted a package, had to wait weeks to get it reviewed, then
got a reply please fix this triviality I wasn't sure if I made it my
first priority to come up with a fix.
What if inclusion in the final release was dependent
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 10:09:13AM -0300, Cody A.W. Somerville wrote:
One of the reasons Open Source software *works* is because it employs
the scientific method. That process relies heavily on peer review. I
don't think we should remove that, discourage that, or ever consider
it unimportant.
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 00:22:08 +0200 Soren Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 10:09:13AM -0300, Cody A.W. Somerville wrote:
One of the reasons Open Source software *works* is because it employs
the scientific method. That process relies heavily on peer review. I
don't think
46 matches
Mail list logo
