On 23/04/07 at 09:04 +0200, Daniel Holbach wrote: > Hello Lucas, > > Am Montag, den 23.04.2007, 08:41 +0200 schrieb Lucas Nussbaum: > > During all my attempts at getting involved in > > reviewing, I came to the conclusion that most packages on REVU don't > > desserve to be in universe. There are trivial scripts, poor-quality > > software, software that has better replacements already in Ubuntu, etc. > > I personally find you lump together all the works of contributors here.
I'm not saying that all packages on REVU meet the above description. There is good quality, useful software as well. > Bear in mind that it's all about choice and contributing. When a > maintainers decide to package a piece of software at least they have a > use for it and if they decide to share the work, that's a good thing. Maybe they have a use for it, package it and upload it to REVU, then continue to use it and discover that there's a better alternative already in the archive. Now that there are accurate popcon results for Ubuntu, I'll try to investigate how much packages from REVU are actually installed by Ubuntu users. > Packages DO deserve to be reviewed, Yes, but since there are too many packages awaiting reviews, it might be a good idea to prioritize somehow. The REVU bottleneck is not going to disappear magically. > as you can always help the maintainers to improve their skills. Is the goal of REVU to get more software in Ubuntu, or to get maintainers to improve their skills ? If it's only about improving skills, maybe it could be a good idea to do a second review, to determine if the software is interesting enough to be included into universe... Cheers, -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- Ubuntu-motu mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
