Daniel Holbach wrote: > [snip] > I believe there are a lot of cases where REVU uploads are "triaged" (as > part of the long long list) and simply comment on the few obvious things > that could be improved. If the MOTU felt empowered to make the decision > right now and not leave the upload waiting for another ACK we would come > down to high-quality reviews quicker.
... how exactly do single-person impulse decisions improve the quality of reviews? >> We get a lot of drive by packagers who >> really won't come back and fix it. > > Right, that happens and is a problem. I'm just not sure how the NEW > packages process can make them more interested in packaging and maintaining. Showing them that it's fine to upload buggy packages is not going to make them more interested. >>> It all boils down to the question: "Why don't we trust one MOTU to get >>> it right?" >>> >> Because historically they don't (myself included). > > What can we do to > - strengthen the culture of "clean up after breaking stuff" I'd prefer to strengthen the culture of "not breaking things in the first place." Uploading known-buggy packages seems to violate this. I am thoroughly against this proposal. Although I haven't given too many reviews, for each I have found issues that thorough review by the previous acks. No single person can pick up everything. What's wrong with having more eyes on a package initially? Fixing things before upload is good, particularly if it tests the patience of the contributor. They need patience, or they'll do a drive-by NEW package, which we really, *really* don't need. -- William Grant
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- Ubuntu-motu mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
