FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Ubuntu > Ubuntu Masters Of The Universe

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 01-31-2009, 12:59 AM
Luca Falavigna
 
Default MOTU Meeting Minutes for 2009-01-30

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

MOTU Meeting Minutes for 2009-01-30
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Meetings/2009-01-30

MOTUs:
* Jonathan Davies
* Luca Falavigna
* Nathan Handler
* Emmet Hikory
* Sarah Hobbs
* Morten Kjeldgaard
* James Westby

== Discussion about REVU ==

Morten Kjeldgaard raised a proposal to improve REVU workflow [1]. With
this new approach, packages uploaded to REVU would fall into four
categories depending on reviewers' actions (need-work comments or
advocations). It could also be possible to inhibit new uploads to REVU
at a choosen time (i.e. after FeatureFreeze), but Nathan Handler and
Emmet Hikory put some objections about this feature.

Discussion was taken to describe the new display method for REVU
packages, Nathan Handler and Emmet Hikory argued about the real
usefulness of the new interface, especially because of the notification
feature already implemented in REVU (interested parties can subscribe to
a given package to receive updates about a package status). After a
short discussion, there was no consensus about the proposed workflow
because there is not a clear idea of the benefits of it. Luca Falavigna
proposed to set up a staging REVU server to familiarize with the new
display method to see how it performs and if there is room for improvements.

==== Decisions ====

* Morten Kjeldgaard will code new display method
* Luca Falavigna will look for hosting for a staging REVU server
* Nathan Handler will coordinate the process and report back to
MOTUs about the implementation

[1] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/REVUWorkflowProposal

- --
. '`. Luca Falavigna
: :' : Ubuntu MOTU Developer
`. `'` Debian Maintainer
`- GPG Key: 0x86BC2A50
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkmDsJMACgkQnXjXEYa8KlAvMQCfe8G7URB/0MItE6xT1iWxGcAs
xfIAnA5XBmaQC5YmbLEU75fGwr+sE/gf
=nGtY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
 
Old 02-11-2009, 08:49 PM
Morten Kjeldgaard
 
Default MOTU Meeting Minutes for 2009-01-30

Hi,

> == Discussion about REVU ==
>
> Morten Kjeldgaard raised a proposal to improve REVU workflow [1]. With
> this new approach, packages uploaded to REVU would fall into four
> categories depending on reviewers' actions (need-work comments or
> advocations). It could also be possible to inhibit new uploads to REVU
> at a choosen time (i.e. after FeatureFreeze), but Nathan Handler and
> Emmet Hikory put some objections about this feature.
>
> Discussion was taken to describe the new display method for REVU
> packages, Nathan Handler and Emmet Hikory argued about the real
> usefulness of the new interface, especially because of the
> notification
> feature already implemented in REVU (interested parties can
> subscribe to
> a given package to receive updates about a package status). After a
> short discussion, there was no consensus about the proposed workflow
> because there is not a clear idea of the benefits of it. Luca
> Falavigna
> proposed to set up a staging REVU server to familiarize with the new
> display method to see how it performs and if there is room for
> improvements.

Following up on last MOTU meeting, I have set up a mock-up site
displaying the revised REVU workflow [1]. The original proposal is
available on the wiki [2].

Please note, that most functionality that you know and love from REVU
is not working correctly, in part because my server does not have a
copy of the 48 Gb source package upload data that is hosted on the
real REVU site ;-)

What *should* be working is the links at the top labelled:

Package rung: Unreviewed | In Progress | Advocated | Upload | Archived
Packages

These links lead to pages that are in different stages ("rungs") of
reviewing.

The listings are a bit different from what you are used to, there are
columns listing the total number of comments and the number of days
since upload. This is *not* a part of the proposal; I have merely
played around with data that I thought was useful in gauging the
activity of each package.

In any case, I hope the mockup site will help you see how the proposed
workflow will look in practice!

I am grateful to Siegfried Gevatter (RainCT) for his patience with all
my stupid questions concerning the revu code!

Cheers,
Morten

[1] http://dmz-212.daimi.au.dk/~mok/revu/
[2] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/REVUWorkflowProposal




--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
 
Old 02-12-2009, 01:37 PM
Nathan Handler
 
Default MOTU Meeting Minutes for 2009-01-30

On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 9:49 PM, Morten Kjeldgaard <mok@bioxray.au.dk> wrote:
>
> Following up on last MOTU meeting, I have set up a mock-up site
> displaying the revised REVU workflow [1]. The original proposal is
> available on the wiki [2].

Let me start by saying nice job getting a mock-up version of REVU
online Morten! However, the more I think about this issue, the more I
feel that more lists are not the correct solution. Your philosophy
behind adding more lists was to not have packages that already had one
advocate but received a non-advocating comment from a MOTU be sent to
the Needs Work list. What if instead of lists, we had searches? These
searches would allow each user to specify exactly what type of
packages they wish to see. For instance, there could be searches based
on the number of comments, searches based on the number of days since
the package was uploaded, or even searches based on the name of the
package. We could then allow the user to choose which search(s) should
be displayed on the main page. I think that this would make it much
easier for MOTUs to find the packages they are interested in and
review them. I am interested in hearing what the rest of the community
thinks about this ideas.

Thanks,
Nathan Handler (nhandler)

--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
 
Old 02-13-2009, 10:18 AM
Morten Kjeldgaard
 
Default MOTU Meeting Minutes for 2009-01-30

Nathan Handler wrote:

> However, the more I think about this issue, the more I
> feel that more lists are not the correct solution. Your philosophy
> behind adding more lists was to not have packages that already had one
> advocate but received a non-advocating comment from a MOTU be sent to
> the Needs Work list.

Well, the philosophy is rather to clearly separate packages in different
stages of reviewing so they don't get lost in the muddle of entirely
new, unreviewed packages, packages that have been abandoned, etc. The
result is that packages might wait a bit longer for their first review,
but should then progress faster as MOTUs will be able to focus their
attention on packages that are steadily improving.

> What if instead of lists, we had searches? These
> searches would allow each user to specify exactly what type of
> packages they wish to see. For instance, there could be searches based
> on the number of comments, searches based on the number of days since
> the package was uploaded, or even searches based on the name of the
> package. We could then allow the user to choose which search(s) should
> be displayed on the main page. I think that this would make it much
> easier for MOTUs to find the packages they are interested in and
> review them. I am interested in hearing what the rest of the community
> thinks about this ideas.

What you are proposing is a cool idea that would be very useful and
flexible. In practical terms though, it sounds like a major revision of
the interface, and from my limited knowledge of the software I can't say
what it entails in terms of programming. Perhaps you can follow in my
footsteps and make a mockup site that could present your ideas?

My workflow proposal does not represent the ultimate system for
reviewing; although REVU is really very good, I am sure one could
imagine a much more powerful revuing system, for example under Launchpad
auspices. My suggestion was based on a quite minimal change of the
underlying software (despite that, it turned out to be a bit more than I
had originally envisioned!) so it really is a compromise.

Cheers,
Morten

--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:04 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org