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).
Hi all, 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 become invisible. 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 done throuroughly. This proposed public non-anonymous peer-review system is complementary to the quality review process on [EMAIL PROTECTED], which does not cover all the new packages produced by Debian, and is not limited to NEW packages. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
