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

Re: Use of the BTS for managing sponsorship

* Raphael Hertzog 

| Le Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 02:00:40PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen écrivait:
| > Most of my sponsorees haven't come from the CGI of yours, but from
| > this list, or #debian-devel.
| I know that. I observe myself that the CGI is most of the time out of
| touch with the reality. That's why I want to get rid of it.
| Still, if we created the CGI in the first place, it's because we wanted
| to keep a track of who's looking for a sponsor and so on.
| That's why I want us to switch to use the BTS.

This is usually called shotgun debugging.  Try another solution until
you find one which fits.  Obviously, this is not a good way to debug

| > the term.  What I (and it seems a lot of other people) think is that
| > the current system works fine.  At least, it works a lot better than
| > having to handle it through the BTS.  IMO.
| You don't know if the current system works well enough (neither do I).
| Do you know if all sponsoree find a sponsor ?

I know that not all sponsorees find a sponsor.  The BTS isn't a silver
bullet for fixing that.  If a package is interesting above some
threshold, it will get sponsored, whether it be on -mentors or the

| What I see is that the CGI has a big list of people who haven't find a
| sponsor, and I don't know if they have asked here, or if they have one
| but forgot to update the entry and so on ... the BTS would keep track of
| what happens wrt each sponsored packages. I could find answers to
| questions like that.

Why do you think the BTS would be kept more up-to-date?

Tollef Fog Heen                                                        ,''`.
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are      : :' :
                                                                      `. `' 

Reply to: