CodeReviews
|
Size: 1000
Comment:
|
Size: 5073
Comment:
|
| Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
| Line 1: | Line 1: |
| '''¡¡¡ This is Work In Progress !!!''' | == Team Purpose == |
| Line 9: | Line 9: |
| If you are a member of the UbuntuDevelopers, it's highly appreciated if you join the team and help out: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-code-reviewers | If you are a member of the UbuntuDevelopers, it's highly appreciated if you join the team and help out: || '''main''' / '''restricted''' || https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-main-sponsors || https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-main-sponsors || || '''universe''' / '''multiverse''' || https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-universe-sponsors || https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-universe-sponsors || == Workflow == Members of the team * have either to be in `~ubuntu-core-dev` (for `main`/`restricted`) or `~ubuntu-dev` (for `universe`/`multiverse`) to be able to upload reviewed patches. Still efforts of interested new contributors in reviewing patches are appreciated, * will triage bugs (in the bug lists mentioned above) weekly, * pick bugs they're interested (based on their area of expertise and preference), * assign bugs where a review might take longer to themselves to avoid duplication of work. If the patch was deemed not to be good enough yet, the bug will be re-assigned to the patch author and set to `In Progress`. The preferred way of closing bugs is ClosingBugsFromChangelog. The administrators of the team will * review the list of bugs weekly, * assign long standing bugs (>= 2 weeks) to team members who might be up to the job. Possible conflicts and problems will be discussed in the last minutes of the weekly Distro Team meeting. == Review == As a reviewer you should make sure the following rules are observed: * adhere to StableReleaseUpdates, FreezeExceptionProcess, SyncRequestProcess, Merge policy, * patches should apply, the resulting package should build and work correctly, built packages should install cleanly, * don't hesitate to let the patch go through several review iterations, if you're unsure or unhappy about it. * sync requests don't needs sponsoring or uploads; if you're sufficiently happy with the sync request of a non team member, simply * mark it as confirmed, * add your ''ACK'' in a comment, * unsubscribe the sponsors team, * subscribe `ubuntu-archive` to the bug. * keep the name of the patch author in `debian/changelog` and use `-k<keyid>` to sign the package with your key. * make sure to ask the patch author to submit the patch to Debian and/or Upstream. http://people.ubuntu.com/~dholbach/sponsoring/ has an overview of the bugs in those lists with assignees. |
| Line 14: | Line 48: |
| * https://help.launchpad.net/PPAQuickStart | |
| Line 17: | Line 52: |
| * SponsorshipProcess * SyncRequestProcess * http://people.debian.org/~mpalmer/sponsorship_checklist.html * http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html * [http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/index.en.html Debian New Maintainer's Guide] * [http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ Debian Policy] [[Anchor(Tips)]] == Review Tips == === Source === * Review debdiff of version in the archive with the proposed package. * Check the release target in `debian/changelog`. * If it's a new upstream, check if the `.orig.tar.gz` is the same as the upstream one. (`md5sum(1)`). The reasons for differing tarballs must be in `debian/changelog`. * Use `interdiff(1)` (`patchutils` package) against the `.diff.gz` and `debdiff`(1) ({{{devscripts}}} package) against your test-built binary packages to examine what you've changed (and ensure it tallies with what you expected to change). * Use filterdiff to exclude generated or annoying parts * Check if `debian/copyright` is correct, accurate and complete. * See http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/12/msg00007.html and http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/12/msg00194.html * If a package uses several licences, list which file is under which licence * Always make sure it is clean, who the copyright holder is, and the year of copyright * Check for unuseful comments (e.g. autogenerated # dh_X in debian/rules) in scripts === Build === * Check if the clean target works properly (build twice). * NEW packages should be tried to build in pbuilder (to verify sufficient Build-Depends). * Run `dpkg -c` on the built package or `debc` in the source tree to see if everything installed to the right place. * Run lintian on the `<package>_<version>_<arch>.changes` file. |
Team Purpose
A team of UbuntuDevelopers has agreed on doing periodical reviews of code. To accelerate SponsorshipProcess members of the team will check
the main/restricted sponsoring queue: http://bugs.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-main-sponsors
the universe/multiverse sponsoring queue: http://bugs.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-universe-sponsors
needs-packaging bugs that are marked as Fix Committed: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bugs?field.status%3Alist=Fix+Committed&field.tag=needs-packaging
If you are a member of the UbuntuDevelopers, it's highly appreciated if you join the team and help out:
main / restricted |
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-main-sponsors |
|
universe / multiverse |
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-universe-sponsors |
Workflow
Members of the team
have either to be in ~ubuntu-core-dev (for main/restricted) or ~ubuntu-dev (for universe/multiverse) to be able to upload reviewed patches. Still efforts of interested new contributors in reviewing patches are appreciated,
- will triage bugs (in the bug lists mentioned above) weekly,
- pick bugs they're interested (based on their area of expertise and preference),
- assign bugs where a review might take longer to themselves to avoid duplication of work.
If the patch was deemed not to be good enough yet, the bug will be re-assigned to the patch author and set to In Progress. The preferred way of closing bugs is ClosingBugsFromChangelog.
The administrators of the team will
- review the list of bugs weekly,
assign long standing bugs (>= 2 weeks) to team members who might be up to the job.
Possible conflicts and problems will be discussed in the last minutes of the weekly Distro Team meeting.
Review
As a reviewer you should make sure the following rules are observed:
adhere to StableReleaseUpdates, FreezeExceptionProcess, SyncRequestProcess, Merge policy,
- patches should apply, the resulting package should build and work correctly, built packages should install cleanly,
- don't hesitate to let the patch go through several review iterations, if you're unsure or unhappy about it.
- sync requests don't needs sponsoring or uploads; if you're sufficiently happy with the sync request of a non team member, simply
- mark it as confirmed,
add your ACK in a comment,
- unsubscribe the sponsors team,
subscribe ubuntu-archive to the bug.
keep the name of the patch author in debian/changelog and use -k<keyid> to sign the package with your key.
- make sure to ask the patch author to submit the patch to Debian and/or Upstream.
http://people.ubuntu.com/~dholbach/sponsoring/ has an overview of the bugs in those lists with assignees.
References
["MOTU/Sponsorship/SponsorsQueue"] - Emmet Hikory wrote up an excellent guide to getting the universe queue under control.
- Process documentation
http://people.debian.org/~mpalmer/sponsorship_checklist.html
[http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/index.en.html Debian New Maintainer's Guide]
[http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ Debian Policy]
Review Tips
Source
- Review debdiff of version in the archive with the proposed package.
Check the release target in debian/changelog.
If it's a new upstream, check if the .orig.tar.gz is the same as the upstream one. (md5sum(1)). The reasons for differing tarballs must be in debian/changelog.
Use interdiff(1) (patchutils package) against the .diff.gz and debdiff(1) (devscripts package) against your test-built binary packages to examine what you've changed (and ensure it tallies with what you expected to change).
- Use filterdiff to exclude generated or annoying parts
Check if debian/copyright is correct, accurate and complete.
See http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/12/msg00007.html and http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/12/msg00194.html
- If a package uses several licences, list which file is under which licence
- Always make sure it is clean, who the copyright holder is, and the year of copyright
- Check for unuseful comments (e.g. autogenerated # dh_X in debian/rules) in scripts
Build
- Check if the clean target works properly (build twice).
- NEW packages should be tried to build in pbuilder (to verify sufficient Build-Depends).
Run dpkg -c on the built package or debc in the source tree to see if everything installed to the right place.
Run lintian on the <package>_<version>_<arch>.changes file.
Go back to [:UbuntuDevelopment].BR CategoryProcess
UbuntuDevelopment/CodeReviews (last edited 2023-08-21 12:01:15 by kewisch)