Re: UNRELEASED when searching for a sponsor (Was: RFS: eclib -- library and tools for elliptic curves)
Hi Tobias,
On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 09:11:11PM +0200, Tobias Hansen wrote:
> Am 04.08.2014 17:14, schrieb Andreas Tille:
> >
> > I agree that this workflow has some advantages *IF* PET is used and I
> > would really welcome if we could implement PET for Debian Science as
> > well (any volunteer??)
> >
>
> While it would be useful to have the PET regardless, there's a caveat
> about the sponsoring workflow. It only works if everybody in the team
> knows of this workflow and uses it,
This could be documented in Debian Science policy.
> otherwise sponsors can not
> confidently upload packages based on whether the distribution is set in
> the changelog.
In other words: You revert your initial advise to set the target
distribution to "unstable"?
> Maybe that does not work in large teams, at least that's
> the experience from the Games Team, where we tried a bit to implement
> this workflow which didn't work. Still using a Wiki page with
> sponsorship requests there.
The only sponsoring formalism in Debian Science team I'm aware of is
SoB[1] but I do not want to implement this for all sponsoring requests
in Debian Science - since in this case everything would end up on my
shoulders. I simply wanted to make the Blends concept more popular
amongst newcomers which I somehow consider a large common set with
people having trouble finding a sponsor.
I think we could try PET in any case and see whether we might make
the same experience as Debian Games.
> > Do you know what method is used if the sponsor finds some things the
> > sponsee needs to change?
> >
>
> I guess that's then up to their judgement. If the changes can't be
> implemented very quickly, one of them should set the field back to
> UNRELEASED.
This should be documented as well.
Kind regards
Andreas.
[1] https://wiki.debian.org/DebianPureBlends/SoB
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: