On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Kjeldgaard Morten <[email protected]> wrote: > The point is, it doesn't solve our problem, because at some point, a > human being needs to have a look at the package. Even if all packages > were perfect, we still could not handle one review plus an upload with > the current activity of MOTUs. > > In addition, having this automatic checking would not change the rate > of arrival of new packages. Our rate of processing is less than the > rate of arriving packages, and consequently the pool of packages > awaiting review is constantly increasing.
I can not speak for other MOTUs, but when I review a package on REVU, I normally subscribe to it. That way, I can review it again once a new version is uploaded. If these uploaders abandon the package, I usually move on and review a new package on REVU. Hoever, if the uploader is active, and prepares new versions as-needed, I am usually busy re-reviewing that package, so I don't review any new ones. For me, I would much rather keep working on one package and get it to the point where it can be uploaded than review a lot of packages only once. > > A second point is, that no matter how sophisticated the program, it > will not be able to solve issues that are common with many of the > packages. F.ex. that the package has to be split into several > subpackages, which often is a point of discussion, that the > description is not understandable, that files need to be removed from > upstreams tarball, etc. etc. There are lots and lots of issues that > could never be detected automatically. You are correct. We would only be able to test for some of the more basic stuff. However, this will reduce the number of times that the contributor would need to upload, wait for a review, and revise. The fewer times that they need to do that, the faster we can get the package uploaded and out of REVU. > > Thirdly, and most importantly, is the personal interaction we get with > the uploaders, and in this regard the simple things people are asked > to fix is often a useful beginning. It gives you an opportunity to > judge the qualifications and personal qualities of the uploader, and > it tells you if the uploader is truly interested in doing some work. REVU is not designed to form relationships. If the MOTU is interested in getting to know the uploader, they should initiate a conversation either on IRC or via email. Also, these automated checks will still allow the MOTU to see if the uploader is really interested in working on the package. If they are willing to take the time to make the corrections proposed by the checks, they are probably also willing to make any corrections proposed by the MOTU. > > So, in my opinion, REVU is a very good tool already that fulfills it's > purpose very well. What is lacking is the involvement of more MOTUs. Yes, REVU is a great tool. And yes, having more MOTUs reviewing packages would solve a lot of the problems. However, we can not force people to spend time on REVU. As a result, we need to do what we can to make REVU as easy to use and efficient as possible. -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
