Strawman: eliminating debdiffs

[James Westby]

On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 17:34 +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> OK. Can I suggest that we should change that to something like the
> following:
> 
>   == Patch that does not seem to be getting any attention ==
> 
>   Thanks for your proposed fix. If you feel that nobody is taking care
>   of this package and would like to help to do so yourself, then you may
>   wish to prepare a source package including this fix and follow
>   http://wiki.ubuntu.com/SponsorshipProcess to have it included in
>   Ubuntu.

I don't think this is right either. In my opinion having patches not
on the sponsor queue isn't something we want. I think if a patch is
found with the sponsors not subscribed then the response should be
to subscribe the sponsors. If then the sponsor would like someone
to prepare a debdiff as it's not a simple case then they can state
that.

Having patches not in the queue just means they are lost generally.
The fact that it is not a debdiff shouldn't keep it out of the queue.
Transforming a patch in to a debdiff when it is non-trivial is
something that an aspiring developer can do, as it is useful and
a learning experience. We don't have to ask patch submitters to
do this.

Thanks,

James