Re: Focus of MOTU (Was: NEW Packages process)

2008-04-18 Thread Stephan Hermann
Moins, On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 23:02:17 +0200 Michael Bienia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2008-04-17 10:25:27 +0200, Stephan Hermann wrote: Priority 1a: I think our main focus should still be to fix Universe/Multiverse packages for the actual development release. That means,

Re: Focus of MOTU (Was: NEW Packages process)

2008-04-18 Thread Luca Falavigna
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Stephan Hermann ha scritto: | Ad least adding a lock checkbox on a website should be enough...where | do we get the source of MoM now? I guess source code is here: https://launchpad.net/merge-o-matic Regards, - -- Luca Falavigna Ubuntu MOTU

Re: NEW Packages process

2008-04-17 Thread Sarah Hobbs
Scott Kitterman wrote: If we go down this road, I'd suggest accepting only binary uploads. That'd make sure the package at least builds before MOTUs waste time reviewing it. Scott K Don't be a fool. :) Can you imagine just how many checkinstall-built packages we'd get from doing that?

Re: NEW Packages process

2008-04-17 Thread Stephan Hermann
Moins, On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 23:14:19 +1000 Sarah Hobbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scott Kitterman wrote: If we go down this road, I'd suggest accepting only binary uploads. That'd make sure the package at least builds before MOTUs waste time reviewing it. Scott K Don't be a fool.

Re: NEW Packages process

2008-04-17 Thread James Westby
On Thu, 2008-04-17 at 23:14 +1000, Sarah Hobbs wrote: Scott Kitterman wrote: If we go down this road, I'd suggest accepting only binary uploads. That'd make sure the package at least builds before MOTUs waste time reviewing it. Can you imagine just how many checkinstall-built packages we'd

Re: NEW Packages process

2008-04-17 Thread Sarah Hobbs
James Westby wrote: Isn't the proposal to accept only uploads that also have binary packages, like the Debian archive does? They can be discarded (perhaps after a lintian check), but at least you know they built once somewhere. The source package that comes with it can then be used for the rest

Re: NEW Packages process

2008-04-17 Thread Loïc Martin
Stefan Potyra a écrit : Hi, On Wednesday 16 April 2008 18:51:36 Loïc Martin wrote: [..] 1. Is it possible to review what are the most frequent packaging errors, and how much of these can be picked up by a few scripts? IMHO, most new contributors would omit debian/copyright, or

Re: NEW Packages process

2008-04-17 Thread Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
Sarah Hobbs wrote: I don't see how binary uploads, even when accompanied by sources, buy us anything at all. At the very least they bring the possibility to run lintian against the binaries on REVU, and IMHO that's just enough. That's one of the first things I do when reviewing a package and it

Re: Focus of MOTU (Was: NEW Packages process)

2008-04-17 Thread Michael Bienia
On 2008-04-17 10:25:27 +0200, Stephan Hermann wrote: Priority 1a: I think our main focus should still be to fix Universe/Multiverse packages for the actual development release. That means, merging, syncing, fixing packages which we are importing from Debian or from

NEW Packages process

2008-04-16 Thread Daniel Holbach
a higher emphasis on fixing problems of packages in Universe - higher similarity between NEW Packages process and Sponsoring process - accredit technical skills of approved ubuntu-dev members and don't require re-review I'd like to hear feedback from regular reviewers, REVU admins, our REVU

Re: NEW Packages process

2008-04-16 Thread Scott Ritchie
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: https

Re: NEW Packages process

2008-04-16 Thread Daniel Holbach
-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

Re: NEW Packages process

2008-04-16 Thread Stefan Potyra
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

Re: NEW Packages process

2008-04-16 Thread Daniel Holbach
-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

Re: NEW Packages process

2008-04-16 Thread James Westby
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

Re: NEW Packages process

2008-04-16 Thread Cesare Tirabassi
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

Re: NEW Packages process

2008-04-16 Thread Stefan Potyra
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

Re: NEW Packages process

2008-04-16 Thread Daniel Holbach
-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

Re: NEW Packages process

2008-04-16 Thread Stefan Potyra
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.

Re: NEW Packages process

2008-04-16 Thread Scott Kitterman
the review overhead and the time of waiting - instead of a high entry barrier, have a higher emphasis on fixing problems of packages in Universe - higher similarity between NEW Packages process and Sponsoring process - accredit technical skills of approved ubuntu-dev members and don't require re-review

Re: NEW Packages process

2008-04-16 Thread Stefan Potyra
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

Re: NEW Packages process

2008-04-16 Thread Cesare Tirabassi
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

Re: NEW Packages process

2008-04-16 Thread Daniel Holbach
-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

Re: NEW Packages process

2008-04-16 Thread Daniel Holbach
-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

Re: NEW Packages process

2008-04-16 Thread Daniel Holbach
-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,

Re: NEW Packages process

2008-04-16 Thread Stephan Hermann
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

Re: NEW Packages process

2008-04-16 Thread Scott Kitterman
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

Re: NEW Packages process

2008-04-16 Thread Daniel Holbach
it. Right, that happens and is a problem. I'm just not sure how the NEW packages process can make them more interested in packaging and maintaining. It all boils down to the question: Why don't we trust one MOTU to get it right? Because historically they don't (myself included). What can we do

Re: NEW Packages process

2008-04-16 Thread Cody A.W. Somerville
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

Re: NEW Packages process

2008-04-16 Thread Scott Kitterman
might check with the archive admins and see how they feel about having to look at packages with even less reviewing. We get a lot of drive by packagers who really won't come back and fix it. Right, that happens and is a problem. I'm just not sure how the NEW packages process can make them more

Re: NEW Packages process

2008-04-16 Thread William Grant
packages process can make them more interested in packaging and maintaining. Showing them that it's fine to upload buggy packages is not going to make them more interested. It all boils down to the question: Why don't we trust one MOTU to get it right? Because historically they don't (myself

Re: NEW Packages process

2008-04-16 Thread Reinhard Tartler
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.

Re: Side note (was: NEW Packages process)

2008-04-16 Thread Stefan Potyra
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?

Re: NEW Packages process

2008-04-16 Thread Stani
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

Re: NEW Packages process

2008-04-16 Thread Scott Kitterman
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

Re: NEW Packages process

2008-04-16 Thread Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
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

Re: NEW Packages process

2008-04-16 Thread Stephan Hermann
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

Re: NEW Packages process

2008-04-16 Thread Morten Kjeldgaard
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

Re: NEW Packages process

2008-04-16 Thread Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
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

Re: NEW Packages process

2008-04-16 Thread Tony Yarusso
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

Re: NEW Packages process

2008-04-16 Thread Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
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

Re: NEW Packages process

2008-04-16 Thread Loïc Martin
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

Re: NEW Packages process

2008-04-16 Thread Jordan Mantha
doing? - higher similarity between NEW Packages process and Sponsoring process I'm afraid I don't get that. Really if you're going by similarity the only thing you *want* to be different is the number of acks because that is reflecting there much greater review it takes to introduce a NEW

Re: NEW Packages process

2008-04-16 Thread Scott Kitterman
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

Re: NEW Packages process

2008-04-16 Thread Scott Kitterman
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

Re: NEW Packages process

2008-04-16 Thread Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
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

Re: NEW Packages process

2008-04-16 Thread Stephan Hermann
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

Re: NEW Packages process

2008-04-16 Thread Siegfried-Angel
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

Re: NEW Packages process

2008-04-16 Thread Reinhard Tartler
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

Re: NEW Packages process

2008-04-16 Thread Stefan Potyra
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...

Re: NEW Packages process

2008-04-16 Thread Scott Kitterman
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

Re: NEW Packages process

2008-04-16 Thread Stephan Hermann
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

Re: NEW Packages process

2008-04-16 Thread Soren Hansen
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

Re: NEW Packages process

2008-04-16 Thread Soren Hansen
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.

Re: NEW Packages process

2008-04-16 Thread Scott Kitterman
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