[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: syck-python / request to orphan / wanting to replace with pyyaml.org's YAML stuff

On Wed, 2006-05-03 at 17:49 -0400, Michael DeHaan wrote:

> Given no other replies to this commentary, I think we're ok on the 
> PyYaml 3000 front (what to do about syck-python is another issue, and 
> I'm willing to let it slide if a good working alternative can get out 
> there).
> I do have people interested in reviewing this (Toshio, you are welcome 
> to as well), but I lack a potential sponsor for my first package.   Can 
> anyone jump on board and help me out?   The module itself was already 
> built with distutils, so the spec only moves it into a more reasonable 
> namespace and numbering scheme.
If you put together a good package, I'll sponsor you.  I don't have much
time right now (I've promised to review python-ctypes and I have to get
an upstream release of qa-assistant out the door.)  If someone else
wants to do an initial review to make sure the package conforms to the
Fedora Guidelines and runs okay I can do a final review for sponsorship
much quicker.

It would also be nice if you reviewed one or two packages before being
sponsored.  This helps in two ways: 1) it shows that you've read and
understand the packaging guidelines.  2) it's good packaging karma
(someone has to review your package, you review someone else's)

> Here's the bugzilla:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190493

Looks like you're keeping up to date with upstream which is good.  I'll
leave notes in the bug.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]