On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 20:04:55 -0600 Nathan Handler <[email protected]> wrote: >On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 7:42 PM, Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> wrote: >> I think it's fine to mention, but I wouldn't want the package rejected or knocked into some >> kind of needs work state as a result. > >That brings up another interesting point. Which checks should result >in the package entering the Needs Work list? Most of the issues that >would be checked for are minor things by themselves, and probably >should not be in the Needs Work list. However, I feel that a package >that has a lot of minor issues with it should go in that list. Maybe >we could have a counter that keeps track of the number of issues >detected with the package during the automatic checks. If more than a >certain number of issues are detected, the package is sent to the >Needs Work list (with a comment). Otherwise, only a comment is added. >This would prevent a package that passes all of the checks except the >needs-packaging bug check from being sent to the Needs Work list, but >the uploader will still be told that they should close a >needs-packaging bug in their changelog entry.
I'd suggest the automatically generated list be exposed on the package page on revu so that a MOTU doing a review can quickly look at the list and judge if the package is mature enough for a detailed review. If it's not, they can easily leave a comment like "1, 2, and 4 really need to be fixed before the package gets a detailed review. 3 is nice to have and add a lintian override for 5. It's OK as is." Scott K -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
