On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 16:20 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > Bill Nottingham wrote: > >> Rahul Sundaram (sundaram@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) said: > >>> In a simplied form: Whether you are paid to do some work in Fedora > >>> or not. > >> > >> Even if someone is paid to work on some part of Fedora, that doesn't > >> mean > >> they're paid for all their contributions to Fedora. For example, I don't > >> *think* that Red Hat is explicitly paying Jens to maintain Haskell > >> bindings > >> for Gtk+. > > > > This is precisely why having a field with this information per package > > in the package database is useful. > > This sounds like bloat to me. While this is something we could do, is > it really something we should? > I'm usually of the opinion that more information is better as long as it doesn't compromise someone's privacy. If this is optional information it probably wouldn't violate that principle. I could see this kind of data being useful for things like: 1) Estimating how much of an investment companies besides Red Hat have in Fedora. 2) Having figures on community contributors to post as part of a reply to "Fedora is RHEL Beta". Here's a stab at how this would work: A package could be maintained by multiple people. One might be paid to do work on it but another would not. So this needs to be part of a person/package linking table. We have a table that links person->package-in-collection so that might be appropriate. We probably want to track something more complex than a boolean; sponsored by (self|Red Hat|Dell|Pogo|School District). So adding a nullable field to the personpackagelisting table that references a list of companies (updatable by users) is probably a good first approximation. (Another interesting thing would be to categorize the organization so we could see which sectors are paying people to work on Fedora but the more collected information, the more work a contributor would have to do to enter it.) One problem with this is that the owner is currently embedded within the packagelisting (this made sense as every package needs to have one packager that is the owner.) The best way to change this is probably to change this to create a personpackagelisting entry for every owner and have the owner field in the packagelisting table point at that personpackagelisting entry. Rahul, if you'd like to put this on the list at the bottom of:: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/PackageDatabase I can look at it in more detail later. It won't hit before F7 unless someone else wants to do the work, though. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
