Le Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 02:29:24PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
> If people feel that a reviewing service is needed, we could split
> that out of NEW processing and have a separate service (or just use
> debian-mentors@ and http://mentors.debian.net).
I completely agree with Lucas that it would be beneficial to separate the legal
check from the quality check. In order to save the time of our archive
administrators, we also should ensure that the initial listing of the licences
of our NEW source packages is irreprochable. Speaking of experience, this is
not possible to achieve alone: after a few hours spend on a task, some mistakes
I propose a simple peer review system: when a package is ready for NEW, its
lead uploader usertaggs the ITP bug to request a review, and then performs two
in-depth reviews of other packages that have the same review-calling usertag.
Ask one, give two. Reviews should be ideally either a patch to
debian/copyright, or a short free-text description of the contents of the
source package in case of a positive review, to prove that it has been
This proposed public non-anonymous peer-review system is complementary to the
quality review process on firstname.lastname@example.org, which does not cover all the
new packages produced by Debian, and is not limited to NEW packages.
Have a nice day,
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com