On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 12:41, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 02:45:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > We've often downplayed asking for help in favour of encouraging people
> > to *offer* to help, but since we're having problems, it's important to
> > try everything we can to overcome them. One of the more effective way
> > of getting useful help (as opposed to someone who says they'll help,
> > then does absolutely nothing), is to find some specific areas (or tasks)
> > that could use help, and then be specific in your request. There are
> > plenty of ways to do this, but at the moment, I think the best way is to
> > file a RFA (which we're redefining as "Request For Assistance" instead
> > of just "Request For Adoption") report against wnpp, with some decent
> > information as to what assistance do you want (someone to take over the
> > package entirely? a co-maintainer? someone to work on some particular
> > area? someone to fix some particular bugs? what skills are required?).
>
> I wonder whether it would be better to have two different labels: RFA
> (Request For Adoption) and RFH (Request For Help)?
>
I can see a few eager-beavers seeing an RFA and uploading a replacement
package without even bothering to notice the Maintainer's just asking
for someone to fix a particularly fiendish bug on some architecture they
haven't got.
I guess what we're really going for intentwise is similar to the recent
GNOME Bounties thing.
I'm quite tempted to RF{A,H} a couple of the tricky wishlist bugs open
on libtool for example.
Scott
--
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part