On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 12:06:27AM +0200, Patrick Matthäi wrote: > Hello list, > > as sponsor I realy welcome the decission and changes to handle > sponsoring requests about our bugtracker, but there are still two > questions/disadvantages from my side: > > a) How should we handle requests, where the maintainer *may* be MIA? > Just for an example #658114 - a realy simple question is unanswered for > about 6 months! > IMO they should be pinged one more time, maybe they have overseen the > response, but if I want to see a package in Debian, I would track it, so > I also would see such "maintainers" as possible MIA candidates just > after their first uploads. So on they may be not qualified to maintain > packages/bugs within a distribution.
I read on bug 658114 not really a question to be answered but rather a suggestion on where to find a sponsor, and since Ansgar Burchardt already sent a cc to the Debian MySQL Maintainers I don't see anything left to do by Mateusz Kijowski for this. Also, Mateusz Kijowski has been updating the package at mentors, so I think that Mateusz Kijowski is doing OK by patiently waiting for a sponsor without sending pointless messages like "I'm still looking for a sponsor and I got no reply from here and there". So bug 658114 is probably not the perfect example of what you meant to discuss. But in general I agree that some requests for sponsorship deserve more attention from the requestors. > > b) Should we assume that the uploader is aware about freeze No, the sponsor should verify whether the changes are suitable for upload. > and realy > delay typical "new upstream release" uploads to unstable? No, the freeze policy doesn't always forbid that. > IMO I do not > think so. I agree that there is no need to delay every "new upstream release" upload to unstable, if that is what you meant. > The process is a bit more complicated but it is still possible > to update testing packages without unstable upoads. Not for fixing bugs in wheezy with severity "important". But then one can still add epoch to revert the upload of a "new upstream release" to unstable. The really unwanted uploads to unstable during the freeze are the "disruptive" ones as explained in the freeze policy. > Surely it is not the cleanest way I guess that everyone agrees that the preferred way is via unstable. > but sponsorship requests should be > processed :) I agree that Debian could use some more sponsors to get more sponsorship requests processed. (We both wrote "processed", not "uploaded".) > > > Personaly I would not sponsor packages in the a) case, I agree that it is OK to ignore requests for sponsorship where the requestor doesn't respond to review comments. > so on I think > they should be closed Please don't close bug 658114 just yet. In general I agree that it is reasonable to want to close some really abandoned RFS bugs. > and some more active and interested mentor could > do this job. Sounds like you're interested in doing that. :-) > > b) is controverse when testing is freezed, For many requests for sponsorship it is still OK to upload to unstable. > but the number of requests > will just grow and grow! Sponsors can still continue to sponsor many requests during the freeze. > Maybe also some warning to the uploader like > "we are frozen, please only upload important bugfixes to sid if > required, if not please use experimental" That would be more restrictive than the freeze policy. I suggest to not issue such warning. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120824013933.gb26...@master.debian.org