sponsorship was: task & skills
On Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 02:24:29PM +0100, Christian Kurz wrote:
> > documented well at all). And I have them fix it. There are packages
>
> And that should be the part that the sponsor should do. We have the
> concept of sponsorship for new maintainers, so that they have a debian
No, we do not.
Sponsorship (may) expedite the application process. Sponsorship
will, probably, disappearing from the Debian volcabulary once
the new-maintainer backlog has cleared.
> In my opinion it's not the job of the application manager to fix
> packages. If a new maintainer has no sponsor, he should first get one
> assigned, who will guide him and check the packages. After he passed
> this test, he should be processed by the NMs and not earlier.
Have you actually read the current application manager checklist or is
what you would like to happen?
> > in Woody from experienced developers with wrong build dependencies.
>
> What do you want to state with this sentence? You forgot that it's
> easier to send a mail to an experined developer telling him his package
> has wrong build-dependency then sending such a mail to a new maintainer.
Please provide proof of this.
> The experienced developer knows what's wrong and how we has to fix his
> package, while you have to explain all the stuff to the new maintainer.
If your bug report is about a packaging violation you ought to be including
chapter and verse - an experienced maintainer is simply more likely to be
able to figure out a poor bug report than an inexperiened one
>
> > When a build depdencency is broken, they will sooner or later get a
> > bug report, and then fix it (I remember filing a bug against one of
>
> If they are not lazy and just ignoring it.
>
> > your packages, Adrian -- removing a unneeded build dependency is not a
> > nice thing either, especially when you build depend on the package you
> > want to build).
>
> Sorry, but this is lame. Did you ever take a look how much stuff Adrian
> is doing for debian and qa in debian? If not, I would suggest that you
> first examine this before blaming him for such small bug.
>
> > I know it's all in the manuals, but it's a lot to learn for NMs. Why
> > don't you write better documentation? e.g. a "check list before
>
> Because it's not needed. I know some people in the NM queue personally
> and I can tell you, that we don't need more documentation, but a bit
> more sponsoring and willing new maintainers. The people I know in the NM
Yes we need new maintainers and this thread is about making it
more cumbersome and difficult to become one. Are you on the side of
evil (more cumbersomeness) or good (status quo)? You can't be on both.
> queue read the documention and if somehthing is unclear to them, I
> explain it and then undersand it and fix their packages. And this just
> happens, because they are willing to learn and apply for new maintainer,
> to contribute somehting back to the distribution that they are using and
> not because they just want to have a nice new email-address.
>
> > uploading my package" which I proposed earlier in this thread (and to
>
> This is not needed since there's lintian and a lot of sponsors who can
> check the rest of the package for bugs, that lintian won't catch.
Sponsorship is not part of the new-maintainer process.
Anand
--
Linux.Conf.Au -- http://linux.conf.au/
17th - 20th January, -- Alan Cox, David Miller,
Sydney, Australia -- Tridge, maddog and you?
Reply to: