Thanks for this initiative Jakub. Automated builds on copr of packages proposed for review has been very helpful. On 4/4/23 03:59, Jakub Kadlcik wrote: > Thank you all for the feedback. > >> The bottom line is that package reviews can be quite time consuming. I >> don't think the issue is with sponsorship itself. > > Sorry Jason, I probably didn't communicate my idea as clearly as I > should. My intention wasn't to assign sponsors to review tickets and > make them do the actual review. I am trying to address the situation > where a ticket already has a fedora-review+ flag but it was given by a > reviewer who is not a sponsor. > > >> You're saying that tickets were properly filed with the >> packager-sponsors tracker and those were not addressed? I checked the >> open tickets before responding. I didn't see anything. If tickets got >> closed without any action being taken, could you point out those >> tickets? That would be a rather odd state of affairs > > Not in the packager-sponsors tracker, I checked it out, and I must say > it is being processed flawlessly. Really good job there. > Reading the discussion, I think we discovered one of the main issues > elsewhere - We don't properly instruct new contributors to create a > ticket in the tracker. > This will be a big improvement: > https://pagure.io/fedora-docs/package-maintainer-docs/pull-request/118 > > To point out the specific tickets that weren't addressed, they are here: > https://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/needsponsor.html > > >> But I think this is not outreachy enough. > > I agree, so my next step will be improving the fedora-review-service > to post a comment about how to find a sponsor, in case fedora-review+ > flag was given by a non-sponsor. More info in this RFE: > https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service/issues/18 > The packager onboarding experience can be improved. Automation can help. If someone has submitted a new package review request and has not submitted a package review request before, a bot that welcomes the person and announces this on the devel list would encourage others to take a look at the ticket. There is a Fedora ambassador group, maybe this could also be used? It is good to increase active participation in the project. Am not a sponsor, but have reviewed packages of people that need sponsorship. > >> From this thread I get >> the opposite impression, that Pagure tickets are processed quickly and >> FE-NEEDSPONSOR blockers are not looked at. If so, I propose the policy >> is updated to ask for a Pagure ticket in every case. > > I get the same impression and I would agree with Otto's proposal to > get rid of the FE-NEEDSPONSOR entirely. Apart from it not being > processed as effectively as the package-sponsor repo tickets, the > FE-NEEDSPONSOR is confusing anyway (it is set to a review ticket but > the ticket doesn't need to be sponsored, the contributor does. That > becomes weird when the contributor has more tickets at the same time > and so on). But if I understand correctly, FESCo needs to be involved > and therefore this would be a long-term goal. > Automating FE-NEEDSPONSOR is helpful for reviewers as one would typically make more suggestions than for a regular review. Creating a Pagure ticket after successful package review can then also help. May also want to automatically track unofficial reviews by prospective packagers, perhaps even requiring a certain number of unofficial reviews for the sponsorship process to start. > >> Please exclude me from such spam. > > I was finally able to find some numbers and it turns out, we > successfully sponsor ~100 people a year. That is much more than I > expected, so I now understand your point. We are also much more > effective than I thought (well you guys are). > > >> Sure, just plumb the end of the review process (accepted ticket) to feed >> right into the sponsor process (let the sponsors know, preferably via >> the tracker). But I don't think that assigning unreviewed tickets to >> random sponsors is the right way. > > This can work and will be easy to implement as well. I like the idea, > we can try it :-) > > Jakub > > > > On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 11:57 PM Otto Liljalaakso > <otto.liljalaakso@xxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Jason Tibbitts kirjoitti 3.4.2023 klo 20.09: >>>>>>>> Miroslav Suchý <msuchy@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> >>> In any case, what I wrote was the procedure I documented it when I set >>> it up. If all of that documentation was lost, then I don't know what to >>> say but that's not what was intended. >>> >>> I drove the change that made this happen. I made sure the documentation >>> (in the wiki at the time) referenced the procedure. If that was lost >>> after the time when I was able to be very active in Fedora, then that's >>> a sad state of affairs and I don't know why that would happen, but it >>> would be really good if it could un-happen. Did FESCo revert the policy >>> change or something? >> >> Somewhat recently, the Packager sponsor policy [1] has been rewritten. >> The history is that moved content over from the wiki to the Package >> Maintainer Docs, then edited it to make things more clear. Later, I >> realized that what I edited was actually intended to be a FESCo-approved >> policy, just not clearly marked as such in the wiki and editable by >> anyone. So I went to FESCo to get the material officially approved - see >> the pull request [2]. >> >> The result of this is that it is currently a FESCo policy that for new >> packages, the sponsorship is requested by blocking the FE-NEEDSPONSOR >> Bugzilla, and for all other paths by filing a Pagure ticket. The reason >> why I wrote the pull request like that is that at that time, there was >> discussion about this on devel where I proposed using Pagure tickets for >> new packages also, but got negative feedback [3]. >> >> The gist of that negative feedback was "very few sponsors are looking at >> the Pagure tickets, we cannot process that many". From this thread I get >> the opposite impression, that Pagure tickets are processed quickly and >> FE-NEEDSPONSOR blockers are not looked at. If so, I propose the policy >> is updated to ask for a Pagure ticket in every case. >> >> [1]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Packager_sponsor_policy/ >> [2]: https://pagure.io/fesco/fesco-docs/pull-request/59 >> [3]: >> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/X54HX23AFVNPHROX5ULPAEW5YGKWOLPI/ >> _______________________________________________ >> 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue > _______________________________________________ > 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue _______________________________________________ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
