New Upstream Review Proposal

Overview

Currently, the process for updating packages with new upstream versions is poorly documented, with packages for review being uploaded to REVU, attached wholesale to bug reports, and added to various internet-accessible repositories for review. This is frustrating for contributors preparing new upstream versions who may receive conflicting advice on process by sponsors, and frustrating for sponsors, for whom the provided information is rarely the preferred information.

Proposed Review Goals

1. Review contributor changes to packaging
2. Review upstream changes for suitability of inclusion
3. Review maintainability of result

Differences from Patch / Merge Review

1. debdiff is confusing, as it includes upstream changes
   • Avoid diff -u debian/ as this can miss changes in candidate diff.gz
     • may be dropping previous essential patches silently
     • may be adding new patches silently
   • Use interdiff of diff.gz files to only show packaging changes
2. Sponsor must independently collect upstream tarball
   • Package must provide watch file or get-orig-source to collect file
   • Reviewer must verify watch / get-orig-source to ensure no silent patches in orig.tar.gz
3. Sponsor must review upstream changelogs to verify suitability
   • Updated packaging should account for upstream changes
   • Upstream behaviour changes should not adversely affect an upgrade
   • Upstream licensing changes do not make the package unsuitable for inclusion

Differences from New Package Review

1. Package need not meet all review checks (only requirement is watch file / get-orig-source)
2. Reuse of existing packaging is encouraged, even when not ideal
3. Package does not require multiple approvals from members of ubuntu-dev
4. Packaging is to be compared against existing package, rather than reviewed as a new package
5. Package will not enter the NEW queue, and so does not require notification mail

Proposed Process

1. The contributor packages the new package and completes local testing
2. The contributor prepares an interdiff, and provides it to a reviewer
3. The reviewer collects the interdiff, complaining for clearly incorrect updates
4. The reviewer produces a new diff.gz from the existing diff.gz and interdiff
5. The reviewer generates the orig.tar.gz (preferably from a watch file or get-orig-source)
6. The reviewer reviews packaging changes and upstream changes to ensure sanity and transition support
7. The reviewer prepares a .dsc to test builds
8. The reviewer uploads the tested package

Proposed Implementation

Contributors shall submit interdiffs to the existing ubuntu-*-sponsors queues on launchpad in preference to any of the existing mechanisms by which new upstream versions of existing packages are submitted.

Documentation on the generation and submission of interdiff files will be added to documenation on updating packages.

Mail will be sent to ubuntu-motu@l.u.c and ubuntu-motu-mentors@l.u.c describing the new process, and explicity deprecating the use of previous process models.

Further notification may be determined during discussion.

Planned Discussion

The adoption of the above process will be reviewed at the MOTU Meeting for 5th November, 2007. If this page remains considerably after that date, please review the minutes of that meeting to determine if it applies to current reviews.