On 11/28/2011 10:20 AM, Allison Randal wrote: > On 11/14/2011 08:43 AM, Daniel Holbach wrote: >> Am 14.11.2011 17:36, schrieb Scott Kitterman: >>> On 11/14/2011 11:21 AM, Allison Randal wrote: >>>> I'll propose a compromise: how about we remove REVU from the >>>> documentation for new packagers, so we're not pointing people there >>>> first anymore. The MOTU/core-dev who are still using REVU for package >>>> reviews can keep using it, they'll just tell their mentorees to go there. >>> >>> It's not a compromise at all. I think it's the correct solution. >>> >>> Existence of a tool doesn't create expectations, it the documentation >>> around it. Update that and problem solved. >>
Existence of a tool does create an expectation: you expect it to be minimally useful for its stated purpose. It's like creating a search button that always returns "no results found" and then saying that the proper way to search is to not use it in the documentation. >> I personally don't object to people still using it for their own >> purposes, even if PPAs (I know they suffer from the same-version problem >> mentioned earlier), VCSes and other tools do a similar job. >> >> If that's the general concensus, maybe we should also add a piece of >> text on REVU itself? The other pages I know that would need updating >> would be https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Packages/REVU and >> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/NewPackages >> >> Any others? > > It seems like we've reached a good conclusion. I'll leave this standing > for another week for any further comments, and then will start working > on editing the documentation. > If you're going to leave REVU up, you need to make it very clear that it's neglected within the REVU submission interface itself. Thanks, Scott Ritchie -- ubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
