Hello, On 04.09.2012 20:59, Bryce Harrington wrote: > Bad spelling and bad grammar are pet peeves of mine. I try to submit > patches upstream when I spot errors myself. But admittedly these are > typically minor issues. I think it's good to identify them, but it's > more efficient for these to go directly upstream. The sponsorship > process adds overhead and uses up time of reviewers that would be better > to spend on more substantial issues.
I agree that fixes should go as upstream as possible. It's what I tried to make clearer in the packaging guide and I'll integrate the information into the bug fixing initiative page. If fixes are minor but suitable, I think they should still be reviewed, even if they're trivial. > One area I think this audience could have a bigger impact on is > backporting of existing fixes from upstream. This involves doing SRUs, > which might be a bit much for newbies, but it usually requires little or > no coding skill, just packaging/process know-how. Agreed. It'd be nice if we had a good list of them somewhere, so we could add them to the bug fixing page easily. > Much of the trouble of backporting fixes is figuring out how to > reproduce a problem and locating the upstream fix; but this is good > "many hands make light work" type stuff that makes good use of the > community. The remainder of the work is straightforward packaging and > process type stuff; quite learnable via sponsorship and with plenty of > ready pilots and mentors. We can't effectively mentor someone to learn > C++ to fix a bug, but given an existing patch we can certainly mentor > someone through the rest of the process of packaging/testing/sru'ing > it. Agreed. Have a great day, Daniel -- Get involved in Ubuntu development! developer.ubuntu.com/packaging And follow @ubuntudev on identi.ca/twitter.com/facebook.com/gplus.to -- ubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
