this stupid DM process only make debian packagin more slower to evolution,
i have a problem uploading a debian mentors sig file and nobody respond and
solves my problem
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 11:22 AM, David Bremner <brem...@debian.org> wrote:
>
> Hi all;
>
> Here are the minutes from the (apparently) annual "mentors-bof", thanks
> to Didier Raboud for taking them. It turned into a bit more of a
> tutorial session than last year, which I don't think is necessarily a
> bad thing. I also attach the LaTeX source for the slides; a pdf is
> available (somewhere) on penta.debconf.org.
>
> ===========================
>
> QUOTE: Bremner: Gobby is not emacs, it's so sad.
>
> Some statistics:
>
> * 18790 packages are in Sid, amongst which 3036 are non-NMU sponsored
> packages. If you use Debian, you are probably needing one of those;
> you probably rely on any of them. 946 active DDs, 178 DMs, 906
> sponsored people.
>
> OPINION: Bremner: There's a high barrier to be able to upload packages
> without a key in the /magic keyring/.
>
> OPINION: Bremner: Know packaging, love packaging, do packaging. This
> amount of work is the tiny part of getting packages sponsored.
>
> Bremner: sponsoring as a source for new contributors, not only about new
> packages; most of actual DDs have come to Debian trough getting packages
> sponsored, this shouldn't be underestimated as a source of future DDs.
>
> Bremner: There are DDs that sponsor, others that don't, various reasons
> undermine this.
>
> == The big picture ==
>
> There is sort-of a "command-line" shock: debian-mentors{.*} is not
> anywhere close to Launchpad™.
>
> The Mighty Steps to Getting My Package Uploaded:
>
> * Prepare (Close your browser, open a terminal, GAAAAh !? )
> * ITP (for new packages, reportbug wnpp)
> * go package (get help from #debian-mentors, feedback on your
> ITP [probably not positive].
> * upload (well, sort-of) to mentors.debian.net : Upload, QA
> check, …
> * File a "Request For Sponsoring" (RFS) against
> sponsorship-requests. \o/ BTS fun
> * Wait, Revise, Wait, Revise, More Wait. This time the feedback is
> most probably positive.
> * Your Package Gets Uploaded™ (or not…)
>
> == "What packages belong in Debian ?" ==
>
> It recently came as a surprise to some that "someone wants a new package
> to Debian but it might very well be that `Debian doesn't want it`…"
>
> ITP serves three roles:
> * Sanity check incoming packages
> * First contact of new contributions with the Debian community
> * Mutex to avoid multiple people working on the same
> thing. (less important in sponsoring context)
>
> The perception of ITP depends on the side: the filer says "here's the
> work I did, I propose it to Debian", while "debian-devel" (if that
> exists) understands it as "here's a new package `Debian` will have to
> maintain.
>
> Closing RFS's is another (fairly rarely used) feedback mechanism: make
> sure feedback is given out soon enough.
>
> == Tracking sponsorship requests in the BTS ==
>
> After this experiment started, there has been been a lot more noise on
> the mailing list, but is planned to be improved.
>
> * 28 RC bugs fixed, 172 updates, 69? new packages; quite a successful
> experiment.
>
> == Discussion ==
>
> Q: Bottleneck in those steps ^ ? A: Not enough sponsors.
>
> I: Teams are not an administrative barrier, they are probably a resource.
>
> Q: Maybe we are not communicating / enforcing the needed commitment for
> new packages: in fact, the lifetime of a package is in measured in
> multiple years (unstable->testing->stable->security-> …).
>
> I: Removal of packages doesn't only carry a /technical/ cost, it does
> carry a human cost too (users, …).
>
> Q: Do the packages need to be in english? A: Not necessarily, but
> description and copyright probably need both for sponsors and
> FTP-Masters team.
>
>
--
Lenz McKAY Gerardo (PICCORO)
http://qglochekone.blogspot.com
