Core Dev Application - Questions/Voting Thread

[Balint Reczey]

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