Re: Sponsorship model

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 06:48:32AM +0530, Parag N(पराग़) wrote:
> 
> I see all above replies in favor of sponsor person to ask new
> contributor to pre-review some packages. Can't then this be mandated
> to each sponsor that before he will sponsor someone he must ask new
> contributors for pre-reviews? I think it should not be good to have
> something written(to assist with package reviews) in sponsorship model
> and we are taking its meaning something else (not needed pre-reviews).
> 
> The only reason I am in need of this explanation is that then I will
> not ask new contributors for pre-reviews and will sponsor them based
> on their submissions only.
> 
This should have gone to the devel list rather than the packaging-list but
oh well..


Over the past several years, we've been reworking pieces of the
infrastrucure and the packager policy in response to requests to be able to
sponsor people without having them prove that that they are knowledgable
packagers.  Instead sponsorship into packagers represents a sponsor deciding
that a packager is someone that can be taught how to package.  This allows
the sponsor to mentor the packager as they work on an existing package
rather than packages that are wholly new, for instance.

The split of provenpackagers and packagers was the big change that was meant
to enable this.  No longer were packagers able to commit to any of the
thousand packages that was opened to the packager group, instead they were
only able to commit to packages where they were granted explicit power to
commit.

Similarly, recently we reworked the sponsor responsibilities page to say
that the sponsor is not responsible for cleaning up after their spnsorees in
the event the sponsoree wreacks havoc -- instead the package maintainer who
adds the packager to the commit acl for their package is taking
responsibility for cleaning up.

The idea that the pre-review is a necessary step to sponsorship is not
entirely in keeping with this, making the step mandatory, even less so.

-Toshio

Attachment: pgpG67F6s2xf3.pgp
Description: PGP signature

--
packaging mailing list
packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite Forum]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux