On 2008-11-05 16:30:19 -0800, Jordan Mantha wrote: > On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Siegfried-Angel > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jordan: The intention of this is not to let the list look better, but > > to don't waste time reviewing the packages of those people who we have > > already lost and who may not come back again, but instead to focus on > > the packages of contributors who are still active. > > I thought the point of REVU was about getting packages into Ubuntu, > not filtering out people who got discouraged.
Yes (to some point). But I would prefer if we let only those packages in where the contributor is also interested in the package after inclusion into the archive. We don't need more packages which nobody doesn't care about afterwards. According to http://qa.ubuntuwire.com/multidistrotools/universe.html we have 851 packages in universe that are not in Debian sid. Let it be 500 packages after filtering out the language packs, translations, etc. Who is going to maintain them? Certainly not MOTU which is busy enough already. We certainly shouldn't add more unmaintained packages to Ubuntu. Besides this it doesn't help reviewing packages where the contributor lost interest in the package. Who is going to fix the package if not the contributor? We shouldn't spend the rare resource of reviewers on "dead" packages. > That seems reasonable, but I wouldn't base it on something so trivial > as intrepid vs. jaunty. I'd think something like packages who haven't > had a comment from the uploader is so much time. We certainly should > prioritize packages that have received *no* review. So you would prefer reviewing packages where nobody is interested in the review anymore? If I would have time for reviews again I would concentrate on reviewing packages where I know that the contributor is still interested in a review. Michael -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
