Kevin Fenzi kirjoitti 7.1.2022 klo 22.05:
On Thu, Jan 06, 2022 at 10:25:50PM +0000, Inglis, Malcolm via devel wrote:
Well, turns out https://pagure.io/packager-sponsors isn't allowing PRs.
I've pushed to a branch here with updates and dead-link-fixes for the README: https://pagure.io/fork/mcinglis/packager-sponsors/tree/pr-readme-update
@Kevin Fenzi , you're welcome to pull that (or use it) into the repo if you think it looks good. Aside link fixes, it conditionalizes the blurb about "don't apply for sponsorship unless you have packages that have gone through package review process", which I think is what deterred me here.
Thanks for the PR! Pushed.
Perhaps we could make things more clear here (or in the how to get
sponsored document). The intent is not to use the packager-sponsors
tracked for everyone who wants to be sponsored (although I suppose we
could consider doing that). It was only established for the cases where
someone wanted to add a co-maintainer and wasn't able to sponsor them
themselves or someone has a approved / reviewed package and no sponsor
lined up. I guess it makes sense to try and use it for any of the corner
cases that are not 'I don't intend to submit a new package but want to
be sponsored to do other things'.
If that all makes sense...
I can give a couple of reasons why just using the packager-sponsors
tracker always would be better. This is from the point of view of
somebody who had to find a sponsor. I am not a sponsor myself, so I do
not really know this looks from that side.
1. The process is currently so complicated that newcomers are frequently
confused and dissuaded by it. Having just a single way would make it
simpler. Of these two options, the single way would have to be the
tracker, because the FE-NEEDSPONSOR method only works for new package
submissions.
2. In the tracker, you can write your "letter of application" in the
description, and add all the proof you have. So you can first evaluate
yourself, gather more proof if you think it will be needed, and only
submit an application when you feel you are ready. For FE-NEEDSPONSOR,
it is not so clear. The same thing can be done in the review request
comments, of course. But then the review request and the sponsorship
request get mixed up, but actually they are two different things.
3. It may be just my impression, but the system of adding the
FE-NEEDSPONSOR link feels a bit like "don't call us, we'll call you".
Saying that you can file an issue and it will be looked at feels more
friendly and inviting.
Apart from co-maintenance, the tracker is also important for the case
where somebody wants to become a pacakger to rescue an orphaned package.
Otto
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
