>>>>> "H" == Haïkel <hguemar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: H> It's all the more important then to formalize requirements from new H> packagers like having done two quality reviews and link them back to H> their first package tickets. That's sort of an orthogonal issues, but honestly I don't believe anything should be required of a packager besides the proper maintenance of a single high-quality package. That's all many contributors, particularly upstreams, care about. And we want those contributors too (quite a bit, I'd think). If the community says a package submission is good, and a sponsor is willing to make themselves available as to help the packager through the process of getting the package onto end user machines and providing direct support (in addition to the community which should always be there for assistance) then I don't see what else we should make a packager do. The practice of demanding practice reviews is just something that some sponsors would like to see, but it's never been a hard requirement. And it would be really unfortunate if it was, because nothing like that is required for sponsorship via the comaintainer route. H> Though the main bottleneck is time to properly mentor new packagers. I find that I have time to do that while not having time to actually do package reviews. I do really thorough reviews and they take a while. - J< -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
