Kevin Fenzi kirjoitti 8.1.2022 klo 1.23:
On Fri, Jan 07, 2022 at 11:43:15PM +0200, Otto Urpelainen wrote:
> I can give a couple of reasons why just using the packager-sponsors tracker
> always would be better. This is from the point of view of somebody who had
> to find a sponsor. I am not a sponsor myself, so I do not really know this
> looks from that side.
> 1. The process is currently so complicated that newcomers are frequently
> confused and dissuaded by it. Having just a single way would make it
> simpler. Of these two options, the single way would have to be the tracker,
> because the FE-NEEDSPONSOR method only works for new package submissions.
> 2. In the tracker, you can write your "letter of application" in the
> description, and add all the proof you have. So you can first evaluate
> yourself, gather more proof if you think it will be needed, and only submit
> an application when you feel you are ready. For FE-NEEDSPONSOR, it is not so
> clear. The same thing can be done in the review request comments, of course.
> But then the review request and the sponsorship request get mixed up, but
> actually they are two different things.
> 3. It may be just my impression, but the system of adding the FE-NEEDSPONSOR
> link feels a bit like "don't call us, we'll call you". Saying that
> file an issue and it will be looked at feels more friendly and inviting.
Sure, I agree with all of that. However, If everyone who wanted to be
added to packager was told to file a issue, I am not at all sure we
can promise 'it would be looked at'. All the packager-sponsors tickets
go to everyone in the packager sponsors group, but I've only ever seen a
small fraction of them respond to any tickets. ;( I am not sure if thats
because they don't want to deal with sponsoring co-maintainers (the
current 'reason' to file a ticket there) or something else, but I worry
that it would just result in a big backlog of tickets there. :(
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
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
> Apart from co-maintenance, the tracker is also important for the
> 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"  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
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.