Role of the Sponsorship Queue

Daniel Holbach daniel.holbach at
Wed Mar 3 09:18:12 GMT 2010

On 03.03.2010 07:04, Emmet Hikory wrote:
>     So, I think there should be two processes.  One is "do the
> intuitive thing with LP and forget about it".  The other is "learn
> about how Ubuntu Development works, learn which (single) team to
> subscribe to get candidates uploaded, etc.  Given that the first
> "process" involves the absolute minimum prior education on the part of
> the patch submitter, I don't believe this will lead to process
> confusion: we just need to reduce the number of places we tell people
> to seek sponsorship to those more likely to be found by prospective
> developers, and promote doing arbitrary patch review more aggressively
> rather than just asking folk to "sponsor".

Why do we need to have a look at lots of different queues? Is it really
worth having a separate process just for the few cases where I'll just
fix the small problems of a patch instead of doing the "you missed a
semicolon there, can you please reupload again?" dance?

To me it seems confusing, unnecessarily complicated and a hypothetical
distinction which does not solve any problems.

What I tend to do in cases like the one above is 1) fix the mistake, 2)
explain what I did, 3) attach the new patch. It's very quick to do and
if I should have been talking to somebody who's not interested in Ubuntu
Development, well, so be it.

Have a great day,

More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list