Just slightly amended, this proposal was approved today at the MOTU meeting:
STANDARD WORKFLOW: LP is where needs-packaging bugs are created to document the desire for or intent to package something. Once someone starts working on a new package, they assign the bug to themselves and set status to In Progress. Once an initial draft package is uploaded, the URL to the package on REVU is added to the bug in a comment and action switches to REVU. Note: At UDS siretart and sistypoty hacked on REVU so it will no present a stable URL based on source package name so there is a stable URL to put in the needs-packaging bug. Review/Comment/Advocacy of the proposed new package will be done on REVU. Once the New package is uploaded (and in the New queue), it is archived on REVU and action returns to LP. After upload, the needs-packaging bug is set to Fix Committed and then it will automatically get Fix Released is (as it should be) the bug number is in debian/changelog. ALTERNATIVES: The key policy consideration that all alternatives/experiments MUST support is that two MOTUs must agree that the package is ready for upload. They key workflow considerations are: 1. There must be a link in the LP bug to where the proposed package can be found. 2. MOTU advocacy must be documented. 3. The alternative/experimental workflow MUST be clearly described as alternative/experimental 4. The alternative must provide a clear source of data on the status of the package revu. So far I've updated https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment, but there are other pages that still need to be touched. I'll try to get that done over the weekend. Scott K -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
