On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 04:37:18AM +0100, Phil Wyett wrote: > On Tue, 2024-07-23 at 05:20 +0200, Tobias Frost wrote: > > There are corner cases (e.g sponsoree has already a sponsor) where an > > RFS is not needed, but as the rfs-howto says, generally it should be > > done as documented, and that is using RFS bugs. > > > > Have you experience cases where people do not file RFS bugs but should > > have? (/me only looking for RFS bugs, so I don't have that data.) > > > > Morning Tobias, > > I have experienced such cases, but usually get people to file an RFS > eventually. This takes time that I would prefer to be using for other things. > > I understand the documentation as you do, but needed wisdom to now know to be > able to advocate to mentors submitters that filing an RFS and add also the > fact that it is also likely to be looked at quicker. > > No RFS because of having a sponsor. These can languish on mentors with no > ongoing information being present or added. Could an RFS also be required for > this case for clarity and we then know the supposed sponsor is aware, taken > ownership and marked as pending on bts?
No, I don't think that we should *require* an RFS. Possibly the language on mentors.d.n could be tweaked to indicate that a RFS it is even more clear that the sponsoree *wants* a RFS, or mentors tweaked that it will print a warning if "needs sponsor: yes" is ticked. (A a side note, in Debian there are usually multiple ways to archive something, as there are many workflows. It is uncommon in Debian to exactly say that you have to follow exactly one procedure, so e.g requiring a RFS would be a odd thing to do) > Regards > > Phil >
