ArchiveReorganisation and sponsoring

[James Westby]

On Mon, 2008-09-01 at 01:41 +0900, Emmet Hikory wrote:
> In a recent IRC conversation, I was asked how
> ArchiveReorganisation (1) would affect sponsoring, and thought I'd
> raise the same question to the mailing list in hopes of developing an
> answer.
[...]
>     There is also currently a bug about awkward workflows for
> sponsoring in Launchpad (3), and it may be that as mentioned there,
> the proposed solution is to encourage revision modifications using the
> branch merge request review workflow, towards eventual implementation
> of NoMoreSourcePackages (4).  While this may well be suitable for
> packages belonging to a specific maintenance team, who may have
> branches for those source packages with which they work already
> available, some outstanding bzr bugs (5) make this painful for
> universe, where the sponsor may have never seen the package
> previously, and may never intend to look at it again.

Hi Emmet,

Thanks for bringing this up, it's something I've also been looking at
recently. I have started defining the requirements for various
processed we have in the development community, so that we can ensure
that any designs for those processes satisfy everyone's needs. In
particular I am going to be using these for the DistributedDevelopment
work, but there is certainly an interaction with ArchiveReorganisation.

The start of my page on sponsorship can be found at

 https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DistributedDevelopment/Requirements/Sponsorship

I'll be watching this thread and will feed back any other requirements
that I get there. Anyone that would like to help with this work is 
welcome to join me in completing this page, or any others, but I suggest
that we contribute to this thread for the sponsoring discussion first.

That page is based on "portions of the archive", due mainly to the
spectre of ArchiveReorganisation. It doesn't talk about a mechanism
for finding which portion a package is in, or the list of people
that may be interested in a portion though.

Thanks,

James