Debtags and Blends tasks pages
Andreas Tille
tillea at rki.de
Wed Jan 28 15:01:37 UTC 2009
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009, Ben Armstrong wrote:
> A QA process to ensure that only "approved" debtags make it out to the
> users, governed by some official body (probably including both the
> debtags team and the team for the Blend itself). I can see that for
> some Blends this might be quite important. For Debian Jr., I am not so
> sure.
OK, this clarifies things. Actually we also face in other Blends
the situation that we (as in Debian developers) are coming more
from the admin side and users have a different view. So a reasonable
interface for the users might be interesting not only for Debian Jr.
> Who do we want to "own" the problem of making this determination, the
> developers or the users themselves?
If we want to serve our users at best I completely agree that they
should have a word about this.
> The answer is probably a bit of
> both. So how strict do we need the QA process to be? If the QA team
> is made up entirely of developers, then this may be a barrier for user
> participation.
Well, it is not really that way. I tried to get users involved in our
mailing list - but I can not say that it is really successful and
specifically in the Debian Jr. case this will most probably not work
at all. So definitely yes for user involvement - but a better way
of communication is needed.
> That is, if there is sufficient delay between a user
> making a recommendation and the recommendation becoming publicly
> visible, the user might lose interest in the excercise and stop
> contributing. If the barrier for participation in the recommendation
> process is lowered, we may end up with more people involved and
> ultimately, better quality choices because of it.
Just a rough thought: *If* we try to establish the tasks pages as
central entry point (I'm not sure whether this is an optimal solution
but for the moment I do not know something better) what about a form
field like "Which package would you like to add" or something like that.
> But maybe I'm wrong about this and the whole issue of QA is orthogonal
> with structuring our Blend to allow maximum input from users for
> package recommendations via debtags.
In principle DebTags works with a "form field" like I suggested above
so If we feed reasonable preseedings to the DebTags form we might use
this. Than we might use a script that compares DebTags and tasks files
and offer the diff to the Blends team. (This is in principle what I
had in mind when I wrote the initial mail.) So we might be able to
get some user response if we try to interlock DebTags and tasks files.
The connection points might be:
1. tasks pages generated from tasks files
2. tasks page links to reasonable feeded debtags input form where
user might tweak debtags
3. Blend team uses script that parses a list of debtagged packages
which are not yet in the tasks file / should not be there
4. Blend team edits tasks files or fixes DebTags
5. Goto 1.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
More information about the Debtags-devel
mailing list