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 I > work I > > will always miss something. > > Right. That happens to upstreams, happens to uploads of existing > packages and happens in uploads of new packages. Whenever somebody is > made member of ubuntu-dev they have the chance to break packages (and > embarrass themselves) with every single upload. > > I guess my question is two-fold: 1) how can we improve our existing ways > to collaborate on packaging to be less error-prone, 2) why do we deem > the reviewing of new packages different than uploading for example new > packages versions, etc.? > > > >> Is the quality of packaging our main concern? > > > > Definitively. > > Then what can we do to improve it? Is "I will have to ask my colleague" > the only way to do that? > > > > Very good example, and a showcase of why devs are not very keen in > reviewing. > > First, the contributor missed even the more fundamentals of a package > (other > > examples are native packages which are not, wrong standards, wrong > > distribution, etc.), so the reviewer instead of spending a whole morning > > reviewing the package just points out the more obvious (I would and > never > > have done this by the way, this is a side product of having one reviewer > > trying to "triage" a long queue). > > I picked the example to illustrate that sometimes trivialities which > don't really have a large impact block the upload. > > > > Even then the contributor waits two weeks > > to make a fix which just takes 5 minutes at the most. Is he really > interested > > in packaging? If I were the reviewer I don't think I will want to spend > my > > time in reviewing things that will eventually just get thrown out of the > > window. > > 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. > > > > By the way, how will lowering the required acks to one solve the above > > example? > > If the reviewer feels empowered to make the decision right now and the > contributor is responsible for incoming bugs, chances are higher to > directly come to the beef of the packaging problems. > > > > Should I ack a package that I know doesn't meet the required standards? > I, for > > one, will not want to see Universe become another automatix or > deb-o-matic. > > The right approach here (and this is quite often used) is to say: this > is > > wrong but I'm not blocking for this so that the contributor knows about > it > > (and a good contributor will upload a fix shortly after). > > Right, not-blocking-but-mentioning makes perfect sense. > > > > Having gone very recently through this, yes, it adds frustration and is > as > > much a fault of the contributor as of the reviewer. By lowering the bar > we > > are not doing anyone a favour, just lowering the quality of the archive. > > I still believe that saying "one MOTU's decision is not enough" does not > fix the problem and that there are better ways to get high quality > packages into the archive and have responsive people fixing them as > problems come up. 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. If everyone had unlimited time and resources, I would get every single one of my packages reviewed. No, not because I don't think I'm not competent enough to make the upload myself alone but because I consider peer review the corner stone of our development model. Maybe the issue here isn't a philosophical one but more of a technical one? Maybe we should focus, as you suggested, on improving and innovating review infrastructure? > > > Have a nice day, > Daniel > > - -- > My 5 today: #210449 (network-manager-applet), #215043, #193764 > (evolution-scalix), #215472 (gnome-themes-extras), #205756 (gnome- > subtitles) > Do 5 a day - every day! https://wiki.ubuntu.com/5-A-Day > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFIBfPSRjrlnQWd1esRAsC7AJ993DNk9MgkZHsRj6NUN7qaFROXhgCfXQic > mLIOv2PDRll0NGBfnup+caI= > =/vos > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > -- > Ubuntu-motu mailing list > Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu > -- Cody A.W. Somerville Software Engineer Red Cow Marketing & Technologies, Inc. Office: 506-458-1290 Toll Free: 1-877-733-2699 Fax: 506-453-9112 Cell: 506-449-5899 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.redcow.ca
-- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
