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

Re: sponsorship for package adoption without package submission (was Re: Claiming ownership for thinkpad related packages and pam_mount)



Am Dienstag, den 16.05.2006, 19:45 +1200 schrieb Michael J Knox:
> Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > Am Montag, den 15.05.2006, 13:14 -0500 schrieb Jason L Tibbitts III: 
> >>>>>>> "KF" == Kevin Fenzi <kevin-fedora-extras scrye com> writes:
> >> KF> As far as I know we don't have a method to get someone
> >> KF> sponsored/maintainer status without them having submitted a
> >> KF> package for review.
> >>
> >> I don't think we have a policy, but the procedure is clear.  They can
> >> just sign up for an account as normal, and the sponsor (assuming
> >> someone is willing to be one, of course) can upgrade the status as
> >> normal.
> >>
> >> I think the committee should take up the idea of sponsorship for
> >> package adoption without package submission.
> > 
> > I send the following to the FESCo-List last week (it was in a similar
> > context). 
> > 
> > ---
> > I'll give a example of my currently thoughts: Package foo is orphaned.
> > bar is interested in taking it over, but is no Extras contributor yet.
> > Sponsor foobar steps up; he acts as proxy between bar and Extras cvs for
> > some time (e.g. bar prepares patches, sends them to foobar who applies
> > them and requests the build). If everything looks okay after some time
> > bar get sponsored.
> > 
> > Is this stupid? Biggest problem: How to find sponsors that like to act
> > as proxy?
> > ---
> > 
> > That would mean (a lot of) extra work for the sponsors. And that's why
> > this idea probably will fail. Does anyone have a better idea?
> 
> The normal review request process? Potential owners can state that its 
> an orphaned package and edit the orphan wiki page to include the BZ # of 
> the review request.
> 
> Simple enough?

Sorry, I'm not sure I correctly understood what you meant. You mean that
a new contributor just files a new review request with an updated
version of the old package? That's probably to easy if the old package
is in a good shape.

CU
thl




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