[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, 20:05 +1200 schrieb Michael J Knox:
> Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> hrmm.. good point. Perhaps it should just be avoided? Recommend new 
> contributors take packages from the wish list or alike?

Well, we get closer to the point where most interesting free apps are
packaged. So this will get more and more problematic.

And letting new contributors package apps that the don't use or even are
uninterested in is also likely not the best solution.

CU
thl


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