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 us
On 05/02/2012 05:34 AM, Horst H. von Brand wrote:
VÃt Ondruch 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, where people would dum
VÃt Ondruch 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, where people would dump
> their packages and they would need almo
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
2012/4/29 Michael Schwendt :
> 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 filt
rg
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 3:32:33 PM
Subject: Re: Proposal for revitalizing the sponsorship process for packaging
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 re
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.
Il 28 aprile 2012 19:02, Michael Schwendt 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
>> (ie, super
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
> creati
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
> review
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 11:49:58 -0700,
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?
One thing people can do for things obviously covered by a SIG (games in
this case) is to let the SIG kn
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 22:08:20 +0100,
Nelson Marques 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.
You could also volun
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 10:08:20PM +0100, Nelson Marques wrote:
> No dia 26 de Abril de 2012 21:35, Toshio Kuratomi
> 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 because and
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
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
27, 2012 3:32:33 PM
> Subject: Re: Proposal for revitalizing the sponsorship process for packaging
>
> 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:
> >>
> >
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 submit
No dia 26 de Abril de 2012 21:35, Toshio Kuratomi 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
>> escreveu:
>> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 12:58:59PM +0100, Nelson Marques wrote:
>> >> BZ718430
>> >>
>> > So readin
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 08:49:32PM +0100, Nelson Marques wrote:
> No dia 26 de Abril de 2012 19:49, Toshio Kuratomi
> 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:
> > https://bugzilla.
No dia 26 de Abril de 2012 20:52, Paul Wouters 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 navigate
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 don
No dia 26 de Abril de 2012 19:49, Toshio Kuratomi 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
>> escreveu:
>> > On Thu, 2012-04-26 at 12:18 +0100, Nelson Marques wrote:
>> >
>> >> I was asked by a upstream to mai
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
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/l
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 packagers/reviewe
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 12:58:59PM +0100, Nelson Marques wrote:
> No dia 26 de Abril de 2012 12:40, Adam Williamson
> 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 F
> "MR" == Matthias Runge 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 forward at 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 themselves
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 th
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 04/26/2012 06:37 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"MS" == Michael Schwendt 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 who
MS> shows enou
> "MS" == Michael Schwendt 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 interest
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 hundr
- Original Message -
> From: "Alec Leamas"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> 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 P
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
seek
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 10:49 AM, 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, a
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 que
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 w
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 each
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 intere
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 al
On 04/26/2012 04:20 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"MS" == Michael Schwendt 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 sponsors do
something
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 n
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
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 h
> "MS" == Michael Schwendt 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 ago the
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,. Obv
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 8:02 AM, Alec Leamas wrote:
> On 04/26/2012 02:30 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Alec Leamas
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 04/26/2012 01:18 PM, Nelson Marques wrote:
No dia 26 de Abril de 2012 01:08, Stephen Gallagher
escreveu:
>
On 04/26/2012 02:30 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Alec Leamas wrote:
On 04/26/2012 01:18 PM, Nelson Marques wrote:
No dia 26 de Abril de 2012 01:08, Stephen Gallagher
escreveu:
On Wed, 2012-04-25 at 22:43 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
Why not just drop th
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 13:59:30 +0200, AL (Alec) wrote:
> Still, besides this sad experience, isn't this the kind of cooperation
> we should encourage? Now and then those great people with great apps
> want their app in Fedora. Instead of saying "Wonderful, welcome", we
> send them a list of an ac
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Alec Leamas wrote:
> On 04/26/2012 01:18 PM, Nelson Marques wrote:
>>
>> No dia 26 de Abril de 2012 01:08, Stephen Gallagher
>> escreveu:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 2012-04-25 at 22:43 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
Why not just drop the sponsorship process
- Original Message -
> From: "Nelson Marques"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 2:18:50 PM
> Subject: Re: Proposal for revitalizing the sponsorship process for packaging
>
> No dia 26
On 04/26/2012 01:18 PM, Nelson Marques wrote:
No dia 26 de Abril de 2012 01:08, Stephen Gallagher
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
No dia 26 de Abril de 2012 12:40, Adam Williamson
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 several pur
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 01:08, Stephen Gallagher
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 comaintainer
- Original Message -
> From: "Michael Schwendt"
> 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 (Jaso
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 comaintaine
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
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 peo
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 allowe
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 fix things globally) should be
> something we want
I
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Matthias Runge
wrote:
> On 26/04/12 00:21, Ken Dreyer wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III
>> wrote:
>>> My proposal is at
>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Tibbs/RevitalizingSponsorshipProposal
>>>
>>> I've run this by FESCo, who
On 26/04/12 00:21, Ken Dreyer wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III
> 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 larger au
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 t
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 mad
> "KD" == Ken Dreyer 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 barrier to entr
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 4:03 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 ho
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 made members of the packager group in
the first place and
68 matches
Mail list logo
