Role of the Sponsorship Queue

Daniel Holbach daniel.holbach at
Wed Mar 3 13:11:10 GMT 2010

On 03.03.2010 13:25, Martin Pitt wrote:
> In my experience those corner cases which just need "small fixes" are
> a minority really. A lot of patches in the sponsoring queue aren't
> suitable for inclusion in Ubuntu in their current state because they
> have technical problems, or aren't forwarded to upstream. Dealing with
> rewriting patches and/or forwarding patches upstream is a _lot_ of
> work, which I can do for only so many patches; certainly not enough to
> get that entire queue down to zero with so few people actually doing
> sponsoring.

Sure, but in those cases you'd leave a comment explaining what needs to
happen, be it somebody who does a drive-by contribution or be it
somebody who wants to join the Ubuntu Development team.

Nobody expects you to do all the leg work.

> That's exactly what Bryce and Emmet meant: those patches are
> conceptually in a much earlier state than ready-to-upload debdiffs
> from prospective developers, so by their nature they need a different
> process. And since they can be dealt with by a lot more people than
> just Ubuntu developers they also would require a different process,
> unless we want to arbitrarily introduce a bottleneck for having only
> sponsors deal with them.

I'm sure that Brian is happy to receive suggestions on what
lucid-qa-fixing-bugs-with-patches should entail in addition to what's
planned now.

In the end only uploaders can upload stuff, should they be checking two
different lists based on the motivation of the patch author?

Have a great day,

More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list