Re: Criteria for sponsoring packages
[Adeodato Simó, 2009-04-28]
> + Adeodato Simó (Tue, 28 Apr 2009 10:09:31 +0200):
>
> > + Ben Finney (Tue, 28 Apr 2009 11:25:57 +1000):
>
> > > Note that not everything in Neil's guidelines are appropriate to *every*
> > > package.
>
> > Well, not even that, many of them are a pure matter of personal
> > preference, or apply directly only to him:
>
> Forgot to add, I completely get it's not Neil who's saying these
> guidelines should become some kind of standard, since he has never said
> they apply to anybody except his sponsoring. So, there's nothing wrong
> with him adding subjective criteria in *his* document, and was merely
> challenging the claim that they should be some kind of widely-adopted
> standard, or that they are useful without a big grain of salt.
>
> Hope that clears up my intent. There's nothing wrong with properly
> labelled stuff.
good (/me has some weird rules as well (see signature) and will rather
stop sponsoring people than remove them - thanks to rules I can check
2-4 packages a day)
BTW: there's also ChecklistsfromindividualDDs[0] - it's for sponsors,
but I guess it's a good lecture for sponsorees as well (f.e. to know
what sponsors care about and thus how to prepare good RFS mail)
PS I would love to see tags that would allow me to give higher priority
to some RFS mails (like: [Python] in Subject or "X-debexpo-lang: Python"
in mails generated by debexpo) and discard some others (like Perl or
JAVA ones - I already try to filter them out in sieve[1])
PPS having debexpo up and running would really make things easier, /me
adds this to the TODO list (already too long, though)
[0] http://wiki.debian.org/SponsorChecklist#ChecklistsfromindividualDDs
[1]
| if allof (
| header :contains "List-Id" ["debian-devel.lists.debian.org", "debian-mentors.lists.debian.org"],
| header :matches "Subject" ["*ITP: *", "*RFP: *", "*RFS: *"],
| header :contains "Subject" ["perl", "php", "java", "ocaml", "erlang"]
| ) { discard; stop; }
--
http://people.debian.org/~piotr/sponsor
Reply to: