On Sat, Jan 08, 2022 at 10:56:50PM +0200, Otto Urpelainen wrote: > > Ok, I start to see this better now. I was under the impression that both > FE-NEEDSPONSOR and the tracker were on equal footing and generally speakin, > receive similar attention from the sponsors. But, if the reason for having > the tracker is (or: originally was) just the co-maintainer requests, where > the primary maintainer actually mentors the new packager, then it makes > sense that just a couple of sponsors keep an eye on that tracker and accept > the request on behalf of the primary maintainers. > > > Additionally, I fear it would also leed to 'HI, make me a packager' type > > tickets (with no other info). We could of course close those or ask for > > more info, but then someone has to manage that. > > One easy thing that can be done now is to add an issue template to the > tracker repo.
Thats an excellent idea. I'll try and add one. > > > > Apart from co-maintenance, the tracker is also important for the case > > > where > > > somebody wants to become a pacakger to rescue an orphaned package. > > > > Well, in the past we have asked such folks to file a review request and > > get the orphaned package re-reviewed. > > Interesting. Previously, there was no documented process for handling this > case at all, so I wrote section "Adopting orphaned packages" [1] to How to > Get Sponsored page. As you can see, that section currently points to the > tracker. Do you think we should change that to ask for a re-review? The > current wording is not just my invention, though. There was discussion on > devel first, and the change went through a docs pull request. > > In case a review is required, I would like to understand, why? My > understanding was this: Orphaned packages are assumed to be is acceptable > condition, because existing maintainers can adopt them without a review. The > new packager are assumed to be equal to existing maintainers, because > somebody has agreed to sponsor them and is available for mentoring as > needed. Some caution is certainly needed, since some orphaned packages can > be minefields, it just did not occur to me that package review would be the > appropriate safeguard here. I think the idea was that the person who wanted to take on the orphaned package could suggest improvements to the existing package to prove that they know guidelines, etc. At least it shows that they could show they know the spec file and how to file a review, but I agree this is somewhat 'make work'. kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
