Re: Handling of sponsorship requests
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Patrick Matthäi wrote:
> a) How should we handle requests, where the maintainer *may* be MIA?
> Just for an example #658114 - a realy simple question is unanswered for
> about 6 months!
> IMO they should be pinged one more time, maybe they have overseen the
> response, but if I want to see a package in Debian, I would track it, so
> I also would see such "maintainers" as possible MIA candidates just
> after their first uploads. So on they may be not qualified to maintain
> packages/bugs within a distribution.
What the other Paul said.
Also, since he is maintaining existing packages maybe he should be
reported to the MIA team as per usual MIA procedures?
http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mateusz.kijowski%40gmail.com
> b) Should we assume that the uploader is aware about freeze and realy
> delay typical "new upstream release" uploads to unstable? IMO I do not
> think so. The process is a bit more complicated but it is still possible
> to update testing packages without unstable upoads.
> Surely it is not the cleanest way but sponsorship requests should be
> processed :)
Your job as a sponsor is also to educate people about usual
procedures; devref, subscribe to d-d-a etc. So IMO sponsors should
inform folks about d-d-a, the freeze and ask if they want it in
experimental instead.
> Personaly I would not sponsor packages in the a) case, so on I think
> they should be closed and some more active and interested mentor could
> do this job.
Hmmm, if you find such cases please at least mail the bug/sponsee.
> b) is controverse when testing is freezed, but the number of requests
> will just grow and grow! Maybe also some warning to the uploader like
> "we are frozen, please only upload important bugfixes to sid if
> required, if not please use experimental"
Adding that in a very visible banner on mentors.d.n sounds like a great idea.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Reply to: