Re: Handling of sponsorship requests
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 07:20:23PM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 12:06:27AM +0200, Patrick Matthäi wrote:
> > Hello list,
>
> Hello!
>
> >
> > as sponsor I realy welcome the decission and changes to handle
> > sponsoring requests about our bugtracker, but there are still two
> > questions/disadvantages from my side:
> >
> > 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!
>
> IMHO, let the mentors-reaper-bot kill the package from mentors after a
> few months, and then poke the bug as incomplete / moreinfo, and then
> close the bug after $TIME
When there is no package to sponsor, the RFS bug can be closed with $TIME=0, in
my opinion. The requestor can reopen the RFS bug when the package is available
again, so no harm done.
>
> > 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.
>
> Here here!
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> Yeah, but it's a major PITA and involves a lot more work (and sometimes,
> lost history if it's updated out of sync with unstable)
>
> > Surely it is not the cleanest way but sponsorship requests should be
> > processed :)
>
> Sure, but might as well throw them up in exp. I mean, it's easy, and fun
> for the whole family :)
Let's not suggest to upload to experimental too soon. The freeze policy still
allows uploads to unstable, just not the "disruptive" ones.
>
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
> +1.
>
> >
> > 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"
>
> Yeah, mentors has this warning,
No, mentors has the text "In preparation of the upcoming Debian Wheezy release
Testing migration has been frozen. Do not expect much sponsoring activity
regarding NEW packages or packages not fixing important bugs." and that is
something different.
> where else would you suggest putting it
> to make sure people, well, read it? :)
It would be nice to have a link to the freeze policy there.
http://release.debian.org/wheezy/freeze_policy.html
Regards,
Bart Martens
Reply to: