Strawman: eliminating debdiffs

[Colin Watson]

On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 05:48:48PM +0100, James Westby wrote:
> 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.

OK, I can agree with that. So does that mean that the above recommended
triage text simply disappears and is replaced by triagers subscribing
the team? I'd be in favour of that.

-- 
Colin Watson                                       [cjwatson at ubuntu.com]