Sponsorship Queue Process

Daniel Holbach daniel.holbach at ubuntu.com
Fri Aug 21 08:46:58 BST 2009

Hash: SHA1

Brian Murray wrote:
> I was looking at some documentation regarding the sponsorship queue[1]
> the other day and noticed that it doesn't mention the Triaged status at
> all.  I understand that people requesting sponsorship wouldn't
> necessarily be able to set the Triaged status but the documentation
> might lead one to believe that a bug must be in Confirmed status for it
> to be sponsored and that moving bugs from Triaged to Confirmed makes
> sense.  It doesn't in this case and wanted to update the process
> documentation to indicate that Confirmed or Triaged could be used by
> people requesting sponsorship and that Triaged should be used by
> sponsors.  Does that seem reasonable?

I look at the sponsoring queue almost every day and almost every bug
status is used and I guess there's almost every time a proper
justification for it.

 - "In Progress" because "getting the fix into Ubuntu" is still in
 - "Confirmed" because the bug or the patch is confirmed to work.
 - "Triaged" because the triage process is complete and the problem
   well understood.
 - "Fix Committed" because "a fix is available".
 - "New" because "the fix has not been uploaded yet".
 - etc.

It's my gut feeling that this is a result of mixing bug status with
patch status and additionally having a team subscribed or unsubscribed
being part of the process.

Because I'm very pragmatic and don't like long wiki pages that regulate
every imaginable case, I'd probably say "don't bother with the wiki
page, let's hope that we use merge proposals for everything soon which
are much much clearer", but I don't know how many people see this as I
do. :-)

Have a great day,
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list