Amanda Waite wrote on 11/27/2009 09:43:37 AM:
>
> On 27/11/2009 15:16, Andrew M. Hettinger wrote:
> >
> > Robert Milkowski wrote on 11/26/2009 06:06:43 AM:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 26 Nov 2009, Amanda Waite wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 26/11/2009 11:01, Robert Milkowski wrote:
> > > >> Hi,
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> What happens if there is a package already in /contrib and a
> > maintainer
> > > >> submits and updated spec and it build successfully. Is the
> > package then
> > > >> automatically pushed to /contrib?
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > No, it has to go through the same voting process. There's nothing
> > automatic
> > > > about promotions to /contrib.
> > >
> > >
> > > Makes sense however I think that whoever reviews it if she/he thinks
> > there
> > > aren't any big changes one vote imho should be enough to get it
> > promoted
> > > again.
> > >
> >
> > I respectively disagree, for two reasons.
> >
> > First, the voting process is about testing and detection of bugs and
> > conflicts; the introduction of which is nearly as likely as in a
> > "version bump" as in a new package. Therefore I think two people
> > reviewing is important, even for updates. further, I would like to see
> > a policy to this effect in code, by having SJ clear out all votes any
> > time a change is made.
> >
>
> I don't really have a problem with requiring 2 votes for updates,
> quality is king after all. But I'd prefer one extensive review to two
> hurried one, and the more reviews we have to do the more likely you'll
> be to get the latter. I do feel that we should share testing/review
> information in the way that George (Drapeau) does via his blog. Then a
> second reviewer could focus on what potentially may have been missed.
Excellent points, although I don't think blog posts are the best way to
share your notes on a review. If we could encourage more thorough comments
when people give a vote it would probably be best, as it would make it more
likely that us porters (as well as reviewers) are seeing them. I know
Christian's comments in his vote for my scons (
http://jucr.opensolaris.org/review/packages/734/) submission was very
helpful in making sure it was as good as it should be, this is also true of
the various pre-vote comments from you and others in my ports.
I don't think there is a way to enforce this, but I think it is certainly
best-practice. Those doing it should be encouraged to continue (Thanks!
^_^), and anyone who is not should be encouraged to start.
> >
> >
> > Secondly, (and this may be my misinterpretations of our rules, please
> > correct me on it if I'm incorrect) we have members who can submit
> > packages, review them, and vote on them. Therefore if only one vote is
> > required, there are those who could, in theory, promote an update with
> > no review. I don't even really like the idea of some only having one
> > person review (although AFAIK in practice this has never happened, but
> > I think it does with license approval, and I don't have such a problem
> > there). This could be addressed with the simple clarification of the
> > procedure "no voteing for promotion on your own package."
> >
> We aren't able to vote on our own packages, the UI won't allow it.
> That's the way it should be and we should extend it to validation.
>
> Regards
>
> Amanda
Thank you for the clarification, Amanda, that actually makes me much
happier. Is it possible to formally document that in our procedures so no
one else has this misunderstanding?
> >
> > > >
> > > > It's another of the process issues that I feel need to be ironed
> > out, the
> > > > list grows:
> > > >
> > > > - Building a tree of dependent packages without having to have
> > each one
> > > > promoted to /contrib before preceding to the next
> > > > - Simplified process for contributing updates to existing packages
> > (maybe
> > > > just a single review)
> > > > - Automated process for promoting to /contrib
> > > > - Flag in review table to show that a package is ready to be voted
on
> > > > - OSRs still required for Sun employees contributing to SJ as
> > hobby projects
> > > >
> > >
> > > Agree.
> > >
> >
> > SJ is one of the best systems I've seen along this lines to encourage
> > input. This is the first time I've really felt that my contributions
> > where welcomed in a project of this nature, and for that I'm thankful,
> > but I also concur that formally addressing some of these points can
> > only improve the process.
> >
> >
> > A Hettinger
> > http://Prominic.NET || AHettinger at Prominic.NET
> > Tel: 866.339.3169 (toll free) -or- +1.217.356.2888 x.110 (int'l)
> > Fax: 866.372.3356 (toll free) -or- +1.217.356.3356 (int'l)
> >
A Hettinger
http://Prominic.NET || AHettinger at Prominic.NET
Tel: 866.339.3169 (toll free) -or- +1.217.356.2888 x.110 (int'l)
Fax: 866.372.3356 (toll free) -or- +1.217.356.3356 (int'l)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/sourcejuicer-discuss/attachments/20091127/8562c247/attachment.html>
