On Sun, Nov 03, 2013 at 11:54:34AM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
> On 2013-10-29 17:48, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Niels Thykier writes ("Re: Bits from the Release Team (Jessie freeze info)"):
> >> [...]
> >> As mentioned we are debating whether the "5 DDs" requirement still makes
> >> sense. Would you say that we should abolish the requirement for DD
> >> porters completely? I.e. Even if there are no (soon to be) DDs, we
> >> should consider the porter requirements fulfilled as long as they are
> >> enough "active porters" behind the port[0]?
> > I don't have a good feel for the answer to that question.
> > It's just that if it is the case that a problem with ports is the lack
> > of specifically DDs, rather than porter effort in general, then
> > sponsorship is an obvious way to solve that problem.
> > If you feel that that's not really the main problem then a criterion
> > which counts porters of any status would be better.
> I suppose a "sponsor-only" DD could be sufficient, provided that the
> sponsor knows the porters well enough to be willing to sign off on e.g.
> access to porter boxes. I guess the sponsor would also need to dedicate
> time to mentor (new?) porters on workflows and on quicks like when is a
> FTBFS RC and when it isn't etc.
Why would the sponsor need to be involved in getting the porters access to
porter boxes? Porter boxes exist so that DDs *not* involved in a port have
access to a machine of the architecture and can keep their packages working.
I've never heard of a porter who didn't have access to their own box for
porting work.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature