what about an special QA package priority? - Debian

This is a discussion on what about an special QA package priority? - Debian ; Le Sat, May 24, 2008 at 01:38:27AM +0100, Don Armstrong a écrit : > > We need the people who are doing the review and have continuously > committed to doing the review before we block on the review. Hi ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 23 of 23

Thread: what about an special QA package priority?

  1. Patch peer review.

    Le Sat, May 24, 2008 at 01:38:27AM +0100, Don Armstrong a écrit :
    >
    > We need the people who are doing the review and have continuously
    > committed to doing the review before we block on the review.


    Hi all,

    peer-reviewed scientific research relies on intermediates to organise
    the reviewing process. In this system, reviewers do not need to have a
    continuous commitment. We could think of a similar process for Debian,
    in which the patch writer requests a review to either real persons or a
    bot, who find an appropriate reviewer and change it if he does not
    respond in time or declines the offer. Of course, the best reviewer
    should be Upstream himself.

    Have a nice day,

    --
    Charles Plessy
    http://charles.plessy.org
    Wakō, Saitama, Japan


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  2. Re: what about an special QA package priority?

    On Saturday 24 May 2008, Don Armstrong wrote:
    > On Fri, 23 May 2008, Luciano Bello wrote:

    --cut--
    > > Of course at first is not easy. But we should go to an scenario
    > > where all the local patches was reported to upstream (to apply them
    > > in the next release) or be justified by more than one developer.
    > >
    > > I'm just saying the platitude. We need to improve our process. We
    > > must learn something from the Debian/OpenSSL debacle.

    >
    > We've learned lessons that we already knew: reviewing patches and
    > working to minimize diffs between upstream is good. However, blocking
    > Debian development on upstream or reviewers isn't the way to magically
    > get more people to review Debian-specific patches.


    If Debian prefers quality to quantity, blocking Debian development to upstream
    or reviewers is a good thing. There is no magic way to get more people to
    review Debian-specific patches, but having these extracted and published in a
    centralized system would improve accessibility and readability to the rest of
    the world.

    > We need the people who are doing the review and have continuously
    > committed to doing the review before we block on the review.


    OK, but Debian should help them first revealing its patch material in a more
    accessible and readable fashion.

    --
    pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18
    fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  3. Re: what about an special QA package priority?

    On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 06:44:39PM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
    > On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 06:03:51PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
    > > So, basically, I welcome your proposal, but IMO its simplest and most
    > > effective implementation would be: ``packages scoring high in popcon
    > > have to be maintained by teams using some Vcs-*''.

    >
    > Why do you want to force the use of a VCS onto a team?


    Uh? I'm probably not getting your question, but I do not want to force
    the use of a _specific_ VCS, if that is what you meant. Assuming that
    the proposal rationale was to give more visibility to what is going on
    to a given package, since it is an "important" one, using _whatever_ VCS
    sounds like a requirement to me.

    Of course you need also to specify that it should be public, better if
    it has a web interface to monitor changes and yada yada ...

    Cheers.

    --
    Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ............... now what?
    zack@{upsilon.cc,cs.unibo.it,debian.org} -<%>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
    (15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ? /\ All one has to do is hit the
    (15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema \/ right keys at the right time

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFIOGZ7ZN5jenMUa9QRAjHxAJ9cMtrIlVQWhm0NPNck8s 5z6I7hlgCfUvsq
    zVq66hOYZ8qJdsGciBcGiEs=
    =Du6u
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2