Review

Differences between revisions 4 and 17 (spanning 13 versions)
Revision 4 as of 2011-09-28 12:07:15
Size: 3346
Editor: eth0
Comment:
Revision 17 as of 2011-11-25 22:47:57
Size: 4168
Editor: static-50-46-157-62
Comment:
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 3: Line 3:
New submissions to the ARB come through the [[http://myapps.developer.ubuntu.com|myapps.developer.ubuntu.com]] web interface. If you have a reviewer account on this system (there's still some development work to do to create a general-purpose ARB queue in the interface, so not all ARB members have accounts yet), log in, and you'll see a link to "View applications up for review". At the moment, we manually create a Launchpad ticket for ARB submissions (apps with $0.00 price and a FLOSS license), using the following template: New submissions to the ARB come through the [[http://myapps.developer.ubuntu.com|MyApps]] web interface. The apps relevant to the ARB have $0.00 price and a FLOSS license. All ARB members have a reviewer account on this system, log in and you'll see a link to "View ARB applications up for review or pending QA". There will also be a public, read-only view of this queue added in the next few weeks.
Line 5: Line 5:
{{{
NOTE: This submission was sent through the MyApps process.
=== Prefiltering ===
Line 8: Line 7:
= Application Review For <application name> =

 * Name: <submitter's name>
 * Email: <submitter's email>
 * Application name:
 * Tagline:
 * Keywords:
 * Description:
 * License:
 * Package file (link):
 * Images (links):
   * 128x128:
   * 64x64:
   * 32x32:
   * 16x16:
   * Screenshot:
 * Known issues:
  * Issue.
  * Issue.

=== Status ===

<one of the states from http://developer.ubuntu.com/publish/application-states/, not the same as the bug state in Launchpad>

=== Application Notes ===

<additional notes about the application, if any>

}}}
Some common errors can be quickly prefiltered within [[http://myapps.developer.ubuntu.com|MyApps]], such as submitting a binary package or tarball instead of a source package or tarball. From the Details page for the app, click "Start review". Fill in your query for the app developer, and click "Ask for information". Some common messages are collected at [[AppReviewBoard/Review/Responses]].
Line 40: Line 11:
Check the app for the following criteria, noting each as Pass/Fail, and including any comments. Add your results as a comment to the bug ticket for the submission. Check the app for the following criteria, noting each as Pass/Fail, and including any comments.
Line 42: Line 13:
{{{ ==== Content ====
Line 44: Line 15:
== Packaging ==  * Content is suitable under the terms of the Ubuntu Code Of Conduct
 * Submissions should be applications, not stand-alone documentation or media (image bundles, fonts, movies).
 * Apps should not be forks of existing applications in the Ubuntu archive (main/universe/etc).
 * Apps should be useful or interesting to a general audience.
 * No other software can depend on the application being submitted (e.g. development libraries should be submitted to main/universe or upstream to Debian instead).
 * Applications must be Free/Libre/Open Source software. We follow the [[http://people.canonical.com/~cjwatson/ubuntu-policy/policy.html/ch-archive.html#s-ulp|Ubuntu Licensing Policy]].
 * Applications must be able to be built with tools & libraries in the Ubuntu archive. Apps may bundle additional libraries they depend on, but may not include new versions of already packaged libraries.
Line 46: Line 23:
 * The application is well packaged using the Debian packaging system
 * All correct dependencies are met
 * Application installs cleanly
 * Application be removed cleanly
 * Includes suitable copyright and licensing content
 
== Integration ==

 * Application integrates into the Applications menu
 
== Run Tests ==
==== Running ====
Line 62: Line 29:
== Content == ==== Packaging ====
Line 64: Line 31:
 * Content is suitable under the terms of the Ubuntu Code Of Conduct  * The application is well packaged using the Debian packaging system
 * All correct dependencies are met
 * Application installs cleanly
 * Application can be removed cleanly
 * Includes suitable copyright and licensing content
 * Application integrates into the desktop, with appropriate Launcher or menu entries


If the app fails on any points, the reviewer will contact the submitter with suggestions for changes.

== Voting ==

When the reviewer considers the application ready for vote, the reviewer will raise it on the ARB mailing list with the subject '''[VOTE] Application Review: <application name>'''. Votes on the application are made in replies on the mailing list, using the format:

{{{

 MEMBER: <ARB member's name>
 VOTE: <+1 or -1>
 NOTES: <additional input on the request (optional)>
Line 68: Line 53:
== Voting ==  * Three or more +1 votes mean the application is approved.
 * Three or more -1 votes mean the application is rejected.
 * If there are questions about an application, it may be held for further discussion and review.
Line 70: Line 57:
Votes on the application should be made in the comments, using the format:

{{{
= Application Review Board Response =

 * '''MEMBER''': <ARB member's name>
 * '''VOTE''': <+1 or -1>
 * '''NOTES''': <additional input on the request, if any>

}}}

If voting for a particular app happened on the mailing list, or in IRC, one member can post a list of all the votes in one comment.
One member will summarize the results and add it as a comment to the submission.
Line 84: Line 60:
Line 88: Line 65:
 * Make sure the version number is consistent with: <upstream>-0extras<release.X where X starts at 1 with the first upload. Example: 1.2.3-0extras11.04.1 for the first upload of a package with the upstream version 1.2.3  * Make sure the version number is consistent with: <upstream>-0extras<release>.<X> where X starts at 1 with the first upload. Example: 1.2.3-0extras11.04.1 for the first upload of a package with the upstream version 1.2.3

New Submissions

New submissions to the ARB come through the MyApps web interface. The apps relevant to the ARB have $0.00 price and a FLOSS license. All ARB members have a reviewer account on this system, log in and you'll see a link to "View ARB applications up for review or pending QA". There will also be a public, read-only view of this queue added in the next few weeks.

Prefiltering

Some common errors can be quickly prefiltered within MyApps, such as submitting a binary package or tarball instead of a source package or tarball. From the Details page for the app, click "Start review". Fill in your query for the app developer, and click "Ask for information". Some common messages are collected at AppReviewBoard/Review/Responses.

Review

Check the app for the following criteria, noting each as Pass/Fail, and including any comments.

Content

  • Content is suitable under the terms of the Ubuntu Code Of Conduct
  • Submissions should be applications, not stand-alone documentation or media (image bundles, fonts, movies).
  • Apps should not be forks of existing applications in the Ubuntu archive (main/universe/etc).
  • Apps should be useful or interesting to a general audience.
  • No other software can depend on the application being submitted (e.g. development libraries should be submitted to main/universe or upstream to Debian instead).
  • Applications must be Free/Libre/Open Source software. We follow the Ubuntu Licensing Policy.

  • Applications must be able to be built with tools & libraries in the Ubuntu archive. Apps may bundle additional libraries they depend on, but may not include new versions of already packaged libraries.

Running

  • Application runs correctly
  • Major features operate as expected
  • Does not perform any malicious actions

Packaging

  • The application is well packaged using the Debian packaging system
  • All correct dependencies are met
  • Application installs cleanly
  • Application can be removed cleanly
  • Includes suitable copyright and licensing content
  • Application integrates into the desktop, with appropriate Launcher or menu entries

If the app fails on any points, the reviewer will contact the submitter with suggestions for changes.

Voting

When the reviewer considers the application ready for vote, the reviewer will raise it on the ARB mailing list with the subject [VOTE] Application Review: <application name>. Votes on the application are made in replies on the mailing list, using the format:

 MEMBER: <ARB member's name>
 VOTE: <+1 or -1>
 NOTES: <additional input on the request (optional)>
  • Three or more +1 votes mean the application is approved.
  • Three or more -1 votes mean the application is rejected.
  • If there are questions about an application, it may be held for further discussion and review.

One member will summarize the results and add it as a comment to the submission.

Pre-upload review procedure

Before uploading a package to the ARB PPA, the ARB member should quickly go through this checklist to make sure not to miss anything:

  • Make sure the screenshot/icon branch has been merged and published (can take a while).
  • Look for typos in the packaging, one that we missed was a typo in the Screenshot or Icon name
  • Make sure the version number is consistent with: <upstream>-0extras<release>.<X> where X starts at 1 with the first upload. Example: 1.2.3-0extras11.04.1 for the first upload of a package with the upstream version 1.2.3

  • Merge changelog entries to only have one entry per upload to the extras PPA
  • Triple check the target distro
  • Run lintian on both source and binary package one last time
  • Upload to the PPA. Make sure it builds fine and that it then shows up on extras.ubuntu.com (within 24 hours).
  • Check in Software Center that it shows up properly and installs fine.
  • [OPTIONAL] Blog about it

AppReviewBoard/Review (last edited 2012-11-15 16:51:23 by 59)