Role of the Sponsorship Queue
ubuntu at kitterman.com
Wed Mar 3 05:18:22 GMT 2010
On Tuesday 02 March 2010 08:50:27 am Daniel Holbach wrote:
> Hello everybody,
> Emmet and I had a number of discussions about the nature of the
> Sponsorship Queue and we'd like to have your input on it.
> The major disagreement is if the sponsorship queue is
> - a general list of changes that need be reviewed (after having made
> sure they are actual code changes, etc.) - basically a TOREVIEW list
> for people who can upload
> - an exclusive list of work done by new contributors who want to join
> the Ubuntu Development team eventually - so a place where mentoring
> The distinction is important because "including contributed fixes" would
> require developers to check various lists for input and probably treat
> them differently ("can you update patch to do XYZ in a special way?" vs
> "I modified your patch and uploaded it."), etc.
> The second implication would mean a blocker for
> ches - the essence of the spec is to streamline the process from triaging
> bugs with patches and feeding them into the sponsorship queue.
> Please all share your thoughts.
I thought one of the drivers behind merging Main/Universe processes was to
make it easy for potential contributors by removing the requirement for them
to understand which component a package was in and subscribe the 'correct'
It seems to me that if we split "sponsorship" and "review" into two processes
we've just reinvented a different way to divide the problem and enable new
contributors to pick the wrong one and get frustrated.
Given (if I understand it correctly) we've already made the process design
decision that we want developers to be the ones dealing with process
complexity because they will understand the requirements better, then I think
we ought to remain consistent with that design decision and keep the
sponsorship queue as the general input point for things people who don't have
upload rights would like to get into the archive.
Similarly, I think packageset sponsorship teams should be discouraged for
More information about the ubuntu-devel