ubuntu-appstore-developers team mailing list archive

[Michael Hall <mhall119@xxxxxxxxxx>]

As long as marking it as Rejected doesn't make it more difficult for the
developer or reviewer to approve it later when it's fixed.  Since it
seems that what happened to me was just a matter of somebody forgetting
the process, and not an aspect of the process itself, I retract my
recommendation for avoiding "Reject".

Michael Hall
mhall119@xxxxxxxxxx

On 08/15/2013 05:42 PM, Rick Spencer wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Dave Morley <davmor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 15/08/13 18:57, Michael Hall wrote:
>>> On 08/13/2013 12:49 PM, Daniel Holbach wrote:
>>>> later steps: - add review comment - "reject" or "approve" or "ask
>>>> for information"
>>>>
>>>
>>> Only "reject" if there's no way the app will be acceptable.  If
>>> there's something wrong that just needs to be fixed, use "ask for
>>> information". I had my app marked at "rejected" yesterday and it
>>> took some effort to get it back to a state where the reviewer could
>>> check the new package upload and approve it.
>>>
>>> Michael Hall mhall119@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>
>>
>> I shall use a app x as an example.
>>
>> App x is submitted it is a game that runs locally, in permissions it
>> needs internet.  Ask for more info why are you requesting internet
>> access your app run locally.  Dev replies sorry I copied the
>> permissions from another app, I've removed that now and resubmits.
>> perfect :)
>>
> I disagree with this approach. I think you should simply reject
> applications with the reason why. In this case "description does not
> seem to require internet, but internet access is requested" (or
> whatever). The developer can respond by fixing the description or
> fixing the permissions and resumbitting. Entering some kind of
> conversation with them seems like it will drag out app reviews
> endlessly. I think there should be accept or reject, and no "ask for
> information".
> 
> Cheers, Rick
>