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

Re: Nitpicking: you are doing it wrong

On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org> wrote:
> Don't get me wrong, in my opinion (some of) these things are "good". But
> making a big fuss about them is not helping anybody. It only distracts
> attention from things that are important, and creates false impression that
> they are somehow crucial for high quality packages. I can assure, they are
> not.

Getting back to the original point for a second, I think that it has
been shown that there are no "right" or "wrong" nitpicks (at least in
the list that you posted.) I originally wasn't trying to post a
reference implementation for sponsorship but just give examples and
reasons as to why those nitpicks might not be "wrong." Sponsors/DDs
are well aware that there are multiple ways of handling a package for
sponsorship. People asking for sponsorship are allowed to disagree
with comments during a review, and being able to communicate the
disagreement and work with a sponsor is a sign of maturity (someone
that might be good to start the NM process.)

One of the great things about sponsorship is that it is a case by case
basis: each sponsor, sponsoree, and package has different levels of
comfort, skill sets, and requirements. In some cases, the listed
nitpicks are crucial for a high quality package, and in some cases
they are, at best, an exercise in packaging (which, for many new
contributors, may be quite useful.) At worst, to an experienced
contributor, those nitpicks are a waste of time, but an experienced
contributor should already have a good working relationship with a
sponsor that wouldn't require all of that for an upload. A "cold call"
request for sponsorship on -mentors will most likely have many
nitpicks (some may even be contradictory: one sponsor may say no
dh/cdbs while another may ask you to use dh/cdbs.) The requester's job
is to take those reviews and work with their sponsor to do what's
right for that package (and that sponsor.)


Reply to: