On Donnerstag, 18. Februar 2016, Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
> > Also, I've mostly copied last years template so far, so I think we should
> > update it a bit.
> I just did that, tried to capture the different things that people can
> do and ideas that were submitted to the list.

cool, much nicer now! thank you. :)

> Its still listed as a
> single project because I find it easier that way, but it could as well
> be split into 5.

Nicolas, do you think it's ok as it is? 

> My main concern about making reprotest a GSoC project is “who is going
> to take care of the code after the summer?”  I've seen way too many
> GSoC projects deliver something quite usable which is not followed up
> properly and then quickly rot. So the project gets an applicant excited,
> I really would want to lay down a proper plan for “after GSoC” as part
> of the application process.

I'm undecided on this. I see with your point, but OTOH I would be happy if 
$someone pops up, contributes a hunge working code chunk to jenkins.d.n.git 
and goes away. As long as there is documentation… and in the reprotest case I 
think finishing up the documentation could actually be an outreachy (part) 
> All other projects currently on the list are either because they already
> have primary maintainers that will be able to review, merge and
> follow-up on contributions.

Yup, there are definitly better. reprotest still needs a driver…


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reproducible-builds mailing list

Reply via email to