On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 10:49:56 +0100 Kjeldgaard Morten <[email protected]> wrote: >On 23/01/2009, at 00.30, Nathan Handler wrote: > >> For those of you who might be unaware, I have taken over Siegfried >> Gevatter's (RainCT) role of REVU Coordinator. For the past few days, I >> have been thinking about something, and I want to get the opinions of >> the rest of the people in the community before taking any action. > >... and kudos to you for taking on this task, Nathan! > >I am not sure that more automated package analysis well help much. The >uploaders already have Lintian and other tools at their disposal, yet >the fact is that many packages have lots of Lintian issues remaining >on the binary packages. > >When people upload to REVU, they have read all the guides and >tutorials (at least some have) and what they really want is a human >being to look at it, and to get advice on what to do. Many see the >warnings by the various tools, but simply don't know what to do about >them. Or, they feel unsure on where to go and don't want to spend a >lot of time going in the wrong direction. > >The REAL problem with REVU is that not enough MOTUs care about it to >enable us to keep up with the demand for reviews. > >IF we want this interaction with the community, this way of meeting >and training new developers, we really have to do more! > >If we don't, we should consider closing down REVU. Personally, I don't >think it's a good idea, but it is even worse having a queue of over a >hundred packages where uploaders are waiting months between review >cycles! That is detrimental to our standing respect in the community. >The large number of packages in the "needs-work" section is also >testiment to the number of uploaders who have given up, and every one >of those is a potentially useful contibutor lost. Those still hopeful >of getting their packages processed generally re-upload quite quickly, >and so their package can wait for another month or two. This is BAD.
Agreed. >As someone who has been doing lots of REVUs this cycle, it is quite >depressing seeing that no matter how hard you work, the list keeps >growing, and the packages you advocate do not attract a second advocate. Thank you for this and I quite understand. >As a temporary measure, to get rid of this long queue, perhaps we >should only require one advocate for an upload? This is what Debian >does, and I'd like to suggest a discussion of that on the next MOTU >meeting. > I do not think this is a good idea. I think it's better in the short run if we all step up and do a bit and in the long run if we figure a way to point new contributor more strongly towards fixing what we already have. Scott K P.S. I'll sign up for doing a bit of it. -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
