Core Dev Application - Questions/Voting Thread

[Balint Reczey]

Hi Robie,

I saw I was pinged during last DMB meeting, but I was not around due
to the public holiday.
Is there any news regarding my application?

Cheers,
Balint

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 5:36 PM, Balint Reczey
<balint.reczey at canonical.com> wrote:
> Hi Robie,
>
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Robie Basak <robie.basak at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>> Hi Balint,
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 01:58:18PM +0200, Balint Reczey wrote:
>>> As I mentioned in my other email I'd like to switch to applying via email.
>>
>> I feel that your application is particularly thin on demonstration of
>> knowledge of Ubuntu-specific processes, particularly as you're applying
>> directly for core dev with your first upload to Ubuntu being only six
>> months ago and with only two endorsements both of whom are on your team
>> at Canonical.
>
> I agree that my first direct contribution was only six months ago and
> I can't make it a getting older more than one day per day. I
> contributed through Debian for reasons I detailed in my application
> page but I understand that those don't represent my working knowledge
> about Ubuntu's processes.
>
>>
>> I realise that others on your team may know you better and thus have
>> more out-of-band knowledge in considering your application, which is
>> fine. For me though, I think that your application as written falls
>> short of general expectations.
>
> Before applying I made sure that I met every requirement listed for
> Core Dev [1],
> but I'm sorry if I'm failing to meet general expectations. If you
> could provide clear guidance about the general expectation and
> quantify to amount of work I should devote to showing my knowledge I
> would really appreciate that.
>
>>
>> Can you get further endorsements that cover your understanding of
>> Ubuntu's processes and development culture please, or alternatively is
>> there anything else that you can show that can demonstrate this
>> understanding?
>
> I can ask for more endorsements but I'm not sure what would
> demonstrate my understanding more than my previous work and answering
> questions.
>
>>
>> As an aside, did you upstream your upload in
>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/akonadi/+bug/1709726, or is
>> there some reason that it was not applicable to do so?
>
> I almost always upstream the delta I create or keep while merging
> Debian's changes. Upstreaming in that context means forwarding to
> either Debian or Debian's upstream. When updating packages in Debian I
> also check Ubuntu's delta for patches to take because I don't always
> get them through BTS partly thanks to Ubuntu's relaxed procedure about
> forwarding patches [2].
>
> In this particular case the problem occurs while transitioning to new g++ and
> I also considered the fix as a workaround for upstream's bug. Akonadi
> in Ubuntu was ahead of Debian's version and I expected upstream's bug
> to be fixed thus the forwarded patch would have become obsolete.
>
> You can follow how the issue was handled in Debian #871246 and IMO my
> patch would have been just noise there.
>
> I should have probably explained in the Launchpad bug why I did not
> forward the fix and I think mandating this would be a nice addition to
> the process described in [2].
>
> Thanks,
> Balint
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Robie
>
>
> [1] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopers#CoreDev
> [2] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Ubuntu/ForDebianDevelopers#Why_aren.27t_.2Aall.2A_patches_submitted_to_the_Debian_BTS.3F



-- 
Balint Reczey
Debian Developer