On 05/02/2012 05:34 AM, Horst H. von Brand wrote:
VÃt Ondruchvondr...@redhat.com wrote:
Dne 26.4.2012 18:13, Alec Leamas napsal(a):
On 04/26/2012 05:49 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 17:32:17 +0200, AL (Alec) wrote:
[...]
I am thinking about some dumping repository,
On Wed, 02 May 2012 08:55:22 +0200, AL (Alec) wrote:
I sort of like the submit a provisional spec approach. It will qualify
the requests, and the requester will get some basic understanding making
future communications with an upcoming packager easier. And, of course,
there will be users
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:53:45 +0100, NM (Nelson) wrote:
Potential sponsors either nominate themselves or
get nominated by somebody else:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_sponsor_a_new_contributor
My apologies for deviating the thread earlier. I would address this
issue in a
There is still plenty of such packages all around the internet. I have a
few packages I am using but haven't have the motivation to push them
through the review and i am not even sure if they could go through, but
I am positive that somebody would benefit from them.
Vit
Dne 27.4.2012
2012/4/29 Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com:
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 19:31:43 +1000, GG (Guido) wrote:
That's no new responsibilities. Sponsors have always been expected to do
that. With pkgdb, it requires watch* access to the packages. Else
it requires subscribing to the scm-commits list
Il 28 aprile 2012 19:02, Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com ha scritto:
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 16:31:59 +1000, GG (Guido) wrote:
To go back to initial proposal of
revitalizing sponsor role, I think it would also be a good thing,
given that we leverage on new possible sponsor responsibilities
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 19:31:43 +1000, GG (Guido) wrote:
That's no new responsibilities. Sponsors have always been expected to do
that. With pkgdb, it requires watch* access to the packages. Else
it requires subscribing to the scm-commits list and filtering by
username/packagename. I've done
Il giorno 28 aprile 2012 00:10, Stanislav Ochotnicky ha scritto:
Package review is a good thing, no matter how
skilled the packager is. Guidelines change,
people miss things (such as bundling, licensing issues, wrong
permissions, etc.). I will put it bluntly: getting rid of package
reviews
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 16:31:59 +1000, GG (Guido) wrote:
To go back to initial proposal of
revitalizing sponsor role, I think it would also be a good thing,
given that we leverage on new possible sponsor responsibilities
(ie, supervise new sponsorees' commits for X time after package
creation,
Dne 26.4.2012 18:13, Alec Leamas napsal(a):
On 04/26/2012 05:49 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 17:32:17 +0200, AL (Alec) wrote:
OT? The question here isn't really what submitters do or don't, isn't
it what we could do to improve the process?.
The point is that not all
I have seen way too many problems caused by people installing such
*nonmaintained* packages to even think this will cause more troubles than it
will solve.
Alex
- Original Message -
From: Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012
Quoting Michael Schwendt (2012-04-26 18:36:51)
So, what has been proposed before (years ago even) is for advanced
packagers (aka provenpackagers or experienced packagers) to lower the
hurdle and trust them more in that they know their stuff. They would not
need to wait for somebody else
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 16:10:53 +0200, SO (Stanislav) wrote:
Quoting Michael Schwendt (2012-04-26 18:36:51)
So, what has been proposed before (years ago even) is for advanced
packagers (aka provenpackagers or experienced packagers) to lower the
hurdle and trust them more in that they know
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 10:08:20PM +0100, Nelson Marques wrote:
No dia 26 de Abril de 2012 21:35, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com
escreveu:
1) That there was no reason for you to stop your efforts at packaging the
software for Fedora.
Toshio, I've dropped that package in particular
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 22:08:20 +0100,
Nelson Marques nmo.marq...@gmail.com wrote:
FIFE wasn't maintained for quite some time when that request was
filed. Not pointing fingers, but from the packages I've maintained on
other waters I've always kept my stuff updated and in the shape
possible.
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 11:49:58 -0700,
Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com wrote:
So the big question is -- where did this break down? How can we update our
documentation to guide people in this direction?
One thing people can do for things obviously covered by a SIG (games in
this case)
On 26/04/12 00:21, Ken Dreyer wrote:
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III ti...@math.uh.edu
wrote:
My proposal is at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Tibbs/RevitalizingSponsorshipProposal
I've run this by FESCo, whose response was favorable, so I'm sending
this to a
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Matthias Runge
mru...@matthias-runge.de wrote:
On 26/04/12 00:21, Ken Dreyer wrote:
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III ti...@math.uh.edu
wrote:
My proposal is at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Tibbs/RevitalizingSponsorshipProposal
On 26.4.2012 02:08, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
This approach completely disregards the very common example of I'm an
upstream maintainer of a cool project. I want to package and maintain it
for Fedora. Under your approach, they'd first have to become involved
in other projects before being allowed
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:03:25 -0500, JLTI (Jason) wrote:
For a while now I have been working on a proposal for some changes to
both the way we elevate packagers to sponsors and what (to a small
extent) sponsors actually do. Please note that this is not a proposal
for any changes to how people
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:45:53 +0200, MR (Matthias) wrote:
On 26/04/12 09:45, drago01 wrote:
Well the idea was that a sponsor is a trusted packer so why would he
demolish all packages?
IMO the bar for being a provenpacker shouldn't be that high. Having
more manpower (as in people that can
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 20:08:46 -0400, SG (Stephen) wrote:
On Wed, 2012-04-25 at 22:43 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Why not just drop the sponsorship process and just raise the barrier of
entry for the packaging process instead?
Like having to have been a comaintainer for
- Original Message -
From: Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 1:01:51 PM
Subject: Re: Proposal for revitalizing the sponsorship process for packaging
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:03:25 -0500, JLTI (Jason) wrote:
For
No dia 26 de Abril de 2012 01:08, Stephen Gallagher
sgall...@redhat.com escreveu:
On Wed, 2012-04-25 at 22:43 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Why not just drop the sponsorship process and just raise the barrier of
entry for the packaging process instead?
Like having to have been a
On Thu, 2012-04-26 at 12:18 +0100, Nelson Marques wrote:
I was asked by a upstream to maintain a package for Fedora due to the
high demand it has from Fedora users, unfortunatly I backed down from
the proposal for several purposes:
1) Someone claimed to own the package since 2009, but
No dia 26 de Abril de 2012 12:40, Adam Williamson
awill...@redhat.com escreveu:
On Thu, 2012-04-26 at 12:18 +0100, Nelson Marques wrote:
I was asked by a upstream to maintain a package for Fedora due to the
high demand it has from Fedora users, unfortunatly I backed down from
the proposal for
On 04/26/2012 01:18 PM, Nelson Marques wrote:
No dia 26 de Abril de 2012 01:08, Stephen Gallagher
sgall...@redhat.com escreveu:
On Wed, 2012-04-25 at 22:43 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Why not just drop the sponsorship process and just raise the barrier of
entry for the packaging
- Original Message -
From: Nelson Marques nmo.marq...@gmail.com
To: Development discussions related to Fedora
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 2:18:50 PM
Subject: Re: Proposal for revitalizing the sponsorship process for packaging
No dia 26 de Abril
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/26/2012 01:18 PM, Nelson Marques wrote:
No dia 26 de Abril de 2012 01:08, Stephen Gallagher
sgall...@redhat.com escreveu:
On Wed, 2012-04-25 at 22:43 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Why not just drop the
On 04/26/2012 02:30 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Alec Leamasleamas.a...@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/26/2012 01:18 PM, Nelson Marques wrote:
No dia 26 de Abril de 2012 01:08, Stephen Gallagher
sgall...@redhat.comescreveu:
On Wed, 2012-04-25 at 22:43 +, Jóhann B.
On 04/26/2012 03:02 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 13:59:30 +0200, AL (Alec) wrote:
[cut]
What I'm talking about is to tell these great people that there are two
ways to get their app packaged. One way is to become a packager, and so
far this discussion is about that path,.
MS == Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com writes:
MS There are a few unfortunate sections in the first paragraph already:
Except that they're all true.
users have to go through an almost endless set of steps (which also
needs revision, but that's another topic)
MS Compared with a few years
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
That's not really within the scope of the document. I haven't proposed
lowering the standards for reviewing packages.
I think there is quiet a group of experienced packagers, who do not
consider themselves provenpackers, but who would like to
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:17:09 +0200, AL (Alec) wrote:
I'm not talking about cooperation in that sense. I'm talking about a
more formalized way for people who want something packaged to find a
packager. As an alternative to force people without informal connections
to become packagers for a
Le Jeu 26 avril 2012 16:32, Paul Wouters a écrit :
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
That's not really within the scope of the document. I haven't proposed
lowering the standards for reviewing packages.
I think there is quiet a group of experienced packagers, who do not
On 04/26/2012 04:20 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
MS == Michael Schwendtmschwe...@gmail.com writes:
MS Forcing sponsors to fulfill such criteria is the wrong way IMO. It
MS may result in even more blanket-approval sponsorships.
I don't happen to agree, but at some point shouldn't
On 04/26/2012 12:08 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
This approach completely disregards the very common example of I'm an
upstream maintainer of a cool project. I want to package and maintain it
for Fedora. Under your approach, they'd first have to become involved
in other projects before being
On 04/26/2012 04:58 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:17:09 +0200, AL (Alec) wrote:
[cut]
And for the second part, that somebody has a good connection with
upstream, I'm not sure how that will help, *if* not even one packager
is available. Worse if the single person with
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 09:20:22 -0500, JLTI (Jason) wrote:
MS Forcing sponsors to fulfill such criteria is the wrong way IMO. It
MS may result in even more blanket-approval sponsorships.
I don't happen to agree, but at some point shouldn't sponsors do
something?
Are we talking past eachother?
I got the trailing link wrong, here is same message with link OK (no
punctuation )
On 04/26/2012 04:58 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:17:09 +0200, AL (Alec) wrote:
[cut]
And for the second part, that somebody has a good connection with
upstream, I'm not sure how that
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 17:32:17 +0200, AL (Alec) wrote:
OT? The question here isn't really what submitters do or don't, isn't
it what we could do to improve the process?.
The point is that not all submitters are collaborative, and others don't
seek for sponsors actively. In the needsponsor
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 17:32:17 +0200, AL (Alec) wrote:
OT? The question here isn't really what submitters do or don't, isn't
it what we could do to improve the process?.
The point is that not all submitters are
On 04/26/2012 05:49 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 17:32:17 +0200, AL (Alec) wrote:
OT? The question here isn't really what submitters do or don't, isn't
it what we could do to improve the process?.
The point is that not all submitters are collaborative, and others don't
- Original Message -
From: Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com
To: Development discussions related to Fedora
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 7:13:52 PM
Subject: Re: Proposal for revitalizing the sponsorship process for packaging
On 04/26/2012 05:49 PM,
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 18:13:52 +0200, AL (Alec) wrote:
But isn't part of the problem that
current process forces people which just are interested in a package to
suddenly discover that they are applying to be packagers?
We are in need of _more_ packagers, not less packagers who grab a hundred
MS == Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com writes:
MS Are we talking past eachother? :-/
I don't believe so, no. I do believe that you are reading something
into my proposal that simply is not there, however.
MS What if sponsors _try_ but for some time haven't found anyone who
MS shows enough
On 04/26/2012 06:37 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
MS == Michael Schwendtmschwe...@gmail.com writes:
I don't believe so, no. I do believe that you are reading something
into my proposal that simply is not there, however.
MS What if sponsors _try_ but for some time haven't found anyone
On 04/26/2012 11:40 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
you can expect the review to
take longer, especially if you make no active efforts to try and find
someone to review it - by mailing the list, offering review swaps,
poking people you know within Fedora, pulling in favours etc.
This is a part of a
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:37:54 -0500, JLTI (Jason) wrote:
MS What if there are sponsors with expertise in special areas, who are
MS available to help'n'sponsor other contributors in such areas only?
That was intended to be covered by the assuming there are
sufficient... language in the
On 26/04/12 16:32, Paul Wouters wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
That's not really within the scope of the document. I haven't proposed
lowering the standards for reviewing packages.
I think there is quiet a group of experienced packagers, who do not
consider
MR == Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de writes:
MR exactly, I fully agree. I think, we should lower the barrier to
MR become a sponsor, maybe dropping the necessity to become a proven
MR packager first.
I can't quite tell; are you aware that this is the core point of the
proposal I've put
On 26/04/12 20:37, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
That's in the proposal, too.
Ahem, I'm sorry, I must have skipped that.
Regarding activity report: When doing statistics, I'd love
to see the review-status report again. I don't remember when and why it
vanished; it makes work of
On 26/04/12 20:57, Matthias Runge wrote:
Something like that works well in learning environments, why it should
work here?
should read:
... why it shouldn't work here?
--
Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de
mru...@fedoraproject.org
--
devel mailing list
No dia 26 de Abril de 2012 19:49, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com escreveu:
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 12:58:59PM +0100, Nelson Marques wrote:
No dia 26 de Abril de 2012 12:40, Adam Williamson
awill...@redhat.com escreveu:
On Thu, 2012-04-26 at 12:18 +0100, Nelson Marques wrote:
I was
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
So the big question is -- where did this break down? How can we update our
documentation to guide people in this direction?
I find bugzilla as the core around which to navigate where things are
in a process difficult and inconvenient. Its emails
No dia 26 de Abril de 2012 20:52, Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com escreveu:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
So the big question is -- where did this break down? How can we update
our
documentation to guide people in this direction?
I find bugzilla as the core around which to
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 08:49:32PM +0100, Nelson Marques wrote:
No dia 26 de Abril de 2012 19:49, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com
escreveu:
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 12:58:59PM +0100, Nelson Marques wrote:
BZ718430
So reading that with the meat seeming to come from here:
No dia 26 de Abril de 2012 21:35, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com escreveu:
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 08:49:32PM +0100, Nelson Marques wrote:
No dia 26 de Abril de 2012 19:49, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com
escreveu:
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 12:58:59PM +0100, Nelson Marques wrote:
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III ti...@math.uh.edu wrote:
For a while now I have been working on a proposal for some changes to
both the way we elevate packagers to sponsors and what (to a small
extent) sponsors actually do. Please note that this is not a proposal
for any
KD == Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com writes:
KD Looks good to me. I was unaware that sponsors are (currently) also
KD provenpackagers. I've considered the idea of becoming a sponsor
KD myself, but when I read the archived tickets where other people
KD smarter than me have been denied, the
On 04/25/2012 10:03 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
For a while now I have been working on a proposal for some changes to
both the way we elevate packagers to sponsors and what (to a small
extent) sponsors actually do. Please note that this is not a proposal
for any changes to how people are
On Wed, 2012-04-25 at 22:43 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Why not just drop the sponsorship process and just raise the barrier of
entry for the packaging process instead?
Like having to have been a comaintainer for atleast one release cycle
then completed x many reviews in the next
62 matches
Mail list logo
