Re: modifications by sponsors
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Andrew Starr-Bochicchio wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 8:07 AM, Arno Töll wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 11.07.2012 13:34, Bart Martens wrote:
>>> Is it OK that a sponsor adds modifications to a sponsored package ?
>>
>> I see it regularly that sponsors do little modifications of packages
>> before uploading them. They may fix spelling errors, fix formatting, do
>> cosmetic fixes and so on before uploading a package.
>>
>> Typically they do so to save both parties some time, as they would like
>> to avoid the usual ping-pong game which goes like "if you fix X, Y, Z I
>> will upload your package", wait for a response and a new package and
>> start looking again. Instead they just do such minor changes, upload and
>> send the sponsored people a debdiff/git patch or whatever.
>>
>> Typically they do not add such changes to debian/changelog though and I
>> think that's all fine.
>
> Just for comparison, in Ubuntu this is common practice especially for
> when sponsoring very new contributors. Of course, for better or worse,
> the concept of strong individual maintainership doesn't apply there
> and this is generally when patching an existing package not adding a
> new package to the archive.
>
> Personally, I feel that when adding a new package to the archive it
> can actually be very useful to make the contributor jump through all
> the hoops so they understand the level of responsibly involved with
> becoming a package maintainer. If you're sponsoring say a NMU RC bug
> fix, and there is some minor issue (like perhaps unnecessarily bumping
> the standards version or a typo in the changelog), I'd say go ahead
> make the change, upload, and then describe exactly why you had to do
> what you did so the contributor will know next time.
I also opine that sponsor contributions are a net positive. It
reduces time and (mis)communication issues. The sponsoree may learn
by observing the sponsor's approach to changes. And finally, and most
importantly in my opinion, is that it injects more collaboration in
the process. Strong package maintainership is on the decline, so the
same should be expect through the sponsorship process as well. A
collaboration between the sponsor and sponsoree is simply far more
ideal than a drive-by-and-forget process.
Best wishes,
Mike
Reply to: