headers
Hubert Figuiere | 2 Aug 2006 21:58
Gravatar

More efficient package reviewing

Hi,

I would like to raise a few points/concerns about the package reviewing 
process and the fact that the backlog of package to be review on REVU is 
increasing every day. It is not to blame people, but I'm sure we can make the 
process faster by reducing the actual workload.

First, by following the Package Reviewing guide at 
<https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Packages/Reviewing>  I see a lot of things that 
could be automated for checking, like checking whether the package is in the 
distro or in debian.
We could also have an automatic pbuilding of the package with a detailled 
report. Exit the FTBS that reviewers emit.
In short running REVU tools 
<https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Packages/REVU/REVU-Tools> automatically would 
make sense, or at least using a "Click-n-run" in the REVU interface.

There is also some suggestion that would need more coding on the REVU 
frontend, like listing outstandingly waiting packages, etc.

What do people think?

Hub
Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Lucas Nussbaum | 3 Aug 2006 00:09

Re: More efficient package reviewing

On 02/08/06 at 15:58 -0400, Hubert Figuiere wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I would like to raise a few points/concerns about the package reviewing 
> process and the fact that the backlog of package to be review on REVU is 
> increasing every day. It is not to blame people, but I'm sure we can make the 
> process faster by reducing the actual workload.

I'd like to raise a few other issues about importing new packages into
Ubuntu. REVU isn't only about this, but if discussing the issues
described below might help reduce REVU workload.

== Do we really want newer upstream release ? (ie: diverge from Debian
by having newer software available) ==

Having the newest software is great, but we have to be able to maintain
it. By introducing divergence from Debian, we increase the number of
merges we will have to work on in the future. And merging two different
versions ("visions") of a new upstream release is not easy.
Maybe we should have a more responsible attitude wrt new upstream
releases, and only package them ourself when Debian is clearly lagging,
and we know the newer upstream release will bring something very useful
with it (bugfixes).

== Do we really want more software in Ubuntu ? ==

It seems that the main opinion inside MOTU is "let's get as many
packages in as possible". However, most of such packages never make it
to Debian. Why ? Maybe because Debian is slower. But also maybe because
nobody cares about a 7th package providing the same functionality. In
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Stefan Potyra | 3 Aug 2006 01:27
Favicon

Re: More efficient package reviewing

Hi,

Am Mittwoch 02 August 2006 21:58 schrieb Hubert Figuiere:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to raise a few points/concerns about the package reviewing
> process and the fact that the backlog of package to be review on REVU is
> increasing every day. It is not to blame people, but I'm sure we can make
> the process faster by reducing the actual workload.
>
> First, by following the Package Reviewing guide at
> <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Packages/Reviewing>  I see a lot of things
> that could be automated for checking, like checking whether the package is
> in the distro or in debian.
> We could also have an automatic pbuilding of the package with a detailled
> report. Exit the FTBS that reviewers emit.
> In short running REVU tools
> <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Packages/REVU/REVU-Tools> automatically would
> make sense, or at least using a "Click-n-run" in the REVU interface.
>
> There is also some suggestion that would need more coding on the REVU
> frontend, like listing outstandingly waiting packages, etc.
>
> What do people think?

patches are always welcome :)

Personally I'd like to work on revu2 rather than revu1, since revu1's codebase 
is really somewhat ugly. I hope to get some work done on revu2 soon, if only 
real life wouldn't always distract me ... *g*
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Stefan Potyra | 3 Aug 2006 01:48
Favicon

Re: More efficient package reviewing

Hi,

Am Donnerstag 03 August 2006 00:09 schrieb Lucas Nussbaum:
> On 02/08/06 at 15:58 -0400, Hubert Figuiere wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I would like to raise a few points/concerns about the package reviewing
> > process and the fact that the backlog of package to be review on REVU is
> > increasing every day. It is not to blame people, but I'm sure we can make
> > the process faster by reducing the actual workload.
>
> I'd like to raise a few other issues about importing new packages into
> Ubuntu. REVU isn't only about this, but if discussing the issues
> described below might help reduce REVU workload.
>
> == Do we really want newer upstream release ? (ie: diverge from Debian
> by having newer software available) ==
>
> Having the newest software is great, but we have to be able to maintain
> it. By introducing divergence from Debian, we increase the number of
> merges we will have to work on in the future. And merging two different
> versions ("visions") of a new upstream release is not easy.
> Maybe we should have a more responsible attitude wrt new upstream
> releases, and only package them ourself when Debian is clearly lagging,
> and we know the newer upstream release will bring something very useful
> with it (bugfixes).

Agreed.

>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Matthew Palmer | 3 Aug 2006 03:20
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: More efficient package reviewing

On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 01:48:49AM +0200, Stefan Potyra wrote:
> Am Donnerstag 03 August 2006 00:09 schrieb Lucas Nussbaum:
> > == Do we really want more software in Ubuntu ? ==
> >
> > It seems that the main opinion inside MOTU is "let's get as many
> > packages in as possible". However, most of such packages never make it
> > to Debian. Why ? Maybe because Debian is slower. But also maybe because
> > nobody cares about a 7th package providing the same functionality. In
> > Debian, ITPs are often answered with comments such as "what does it do
> > better than XX ?". Maybe, for new software, we should add a field in
> > REVU where the uploader will describe why he/she thinks the package
> > should be included in Ubuntu, and exactly how it compares to similar
> > packages already in the archive.
> 
> I strongly object: imo FOSS is about choice and thus we shouldn't limit choice 
> just because there is a different package with overlapping functionality. 
> Imho if the person who packages the software cares about it, that should be 
> enough to get it into ubuntu (and of course it is packaged in a sane way).

This exact same reasoning is what has resulted in the massive archive bloat
that Debian (and now the MOTUs) are forced to deal with.  Once a package
goes in, it's far more difficult to get rid of it again.  You've got to try
and make sure that users know that the package is no longer available
(aptitude/synaptic doesn't make them particularly aware, AFAIK), and there
will almost certainly be stink from someone when a package goes away.

If you try to avoid that problem by never removing a package, you're doing
users a disservice because they can have *no* idea whether a package they're
installing is up-to-date, has crippling bugs, or is going to leave their
machine horribly insecure.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Jordan Mantha | 4 Aug 2006 05:37

MOTU School Session: "How do I work on bugs?"

Hi everybody!

As a part of the ongoing MOTU School series, courageous master of mayhem
Simon Law (Ubuntu Quality Assurance guru), will be giving a presentation
on how to get involved with bug fixing and triage.

The Ubuntu Bug Squad [0] is the team of tireless volunteers and paid
developers who try squash the bugs and make sure Ubuntu leads the way in
quality software. Simon will give use an introduction to the team and
what we can all do to help.

Learning how to correctly triage bugs and work with the Malone bug
tracking system can be daunting, but as Simon will show us, it is very
much worth the effort.

Time: Friday, August 4th at 15:00 UTC [1]
Place: #ubuntu-motu-school on irc.freenode.net
Who: everybody is welcome, no matter what skill level

IRC logs will be posted on the wiki [2] after the session so if you miss
it hopefully you can still get a lot of information from it.

See you there!

-Jordan Mantha

[0] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BugSquad
[1]
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?year=2006&month=8&day=4&hour=15&min=0&sec=0
[2] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/School
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Scott J. Henson | 6 Aug 2006 21:07
Picon
Favicon

Sympa

I just noticed that the version of sympa in edgy is woefully
out of date.  I was wondering if I were to package the
latest version, would there be a chance to get a UVF
exception for it?  Thanks.
Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Hubert Figuiere | 7 Aug 2006 01:24
Gravatar

Re: Sympa

On Sunday 06 August 2006 15:07, Scott J. Henson wrote:
> I just noticed that the version of sympa in edgy is woefully
> out of date.  I was wondering if I were to package the
> latest version, would there be a chance to get a UVF
> exception for it?  Thanks.

Universe is not yet in Freeze, so no need for an exception today.
If the version in Debian is not out of date and suits you, file a launchpad 
bug to request a sync (Cc archive on the bug to make sure they get it)

Hub
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Brandon Holtsclaw | 7 Aug 2006 01:38
Favicon

Re: Sympa

Step #1
> If the version in Debian is not out of date and suits you, file a launchpad
> bug to request a sync (Cc archive on the bug to make sure they get it)
Step #2
 Grab a MOTU to ack it, someone is active most of the time in #ubuntu-motu or 
just shoot an email off to this list will work also asking a MOTU to review 
the sync request 

Note: AFAIK its proper protocal to have the MOTU subscribe ubuntu-archive to 
the bug incase changes need to be made to the description etc prior to 
subscribing them as to not spam the ubuntu-archive email with unnessesary 
changes to the filed bug. ( Could be wrong but thats how its been explaind to 
me and the general proceedure thats followed in #ubuntu-motu )

Brandon
--

-- 
Brandon Holtsclaw
imbrandon@...
http://launchpad.net/people/imbrandon
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Scott J. Henson | 7 Aug 2006 01:48
Picon
Favicon

Re: Sympa

Hubert Figuiere wrote:
> On Sunday 06 August 2006 15:07, Scott J. Henson wrote:
>> I just noticed that the version of sympa in edgy is woefully
>> out of date.  I was wondering if I were to package the
>> latest version, would there be a chance to get a UVF
>> exception for it?  Thanks.
> 
> Universe is not yet in Freeze, so no need for an exception today.
> If the version in Debian is not out of date and suits you, file a launchpad 
> bug to request a sync (Cc archive on the bug to make sure they get it)
> 

No, the same version that is in Debian Unstable is already
in Edgy.  Which is 4.1.5-7 and the latest upstream release
is 5.2.1.  The current version in Edgy is a year and a half
old.  So I think I'm gonna take a shot at packaging the new
version.  Thanks.
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |

Gmane