Role of the Sponsorship Queue

[ubuntu@kitterman.com]

"Emmet Hikory" <persia at ubuntu.com> wrote:

>Daniel Holbach wrote:
>> On 03.03.2010 14:37, Martin Pitt wrote:
>>> Daniel Holbach [2010-03-03 14:11 +0100]:
>>>> , should they be checking two different lists based on the
>>>> motivation of the patch author?
>>>
>>> I'm a bit undecided on that, TBH. On the one hand, simplicity is nice
>>> (just having one queue), OTOH we'll never be able to drive that queue
>>> down to zero, so it's also a motivation/get things stuck problem.
>>
>> I'm not sure I understand. Can you explain what do you mean by
>> "motivation/get things stuck problem"?
>>
>> Let me recap: we have lots of bugs with patches attached that are
>> supposed to fix problems, we don't have enough people to review all of
>> them, we probably will never get down to zero. How exactly will it help
>> if we'd ask patch contributors to go to queue A if they're interested in
>> contributing more closely to Ubuntu Development and if not, go to queue B?
>
>    I don't think it's about motivation, but rather about the status
>of the submitter.  If someone is not an Ubuntu Developer, have them
>just submit a patch and call it done.  That makes it simple and easy.
>If someone *is* an Ubuntu Developer, let's make sure there is a way
>that they can get their work uploaded for the case where they can't
>upload to a package directly (using as a definition of "Ubuntu
>Developer anyone falling into any of the categories on the wiki (1)).
>
>    Right now, there is a huge problem in that far to few developers
>spend time looking at the patches that have been submitted.  That
>needs fixing, and we ought encourage more people to review patches.
>But there are two problems with attempting to merge this into the
>sponsors queue:
>
>1) It falsely restricts the set of people who can review/process the
>patch to the set of people who happen to have upload rights to the
>package in Ubuntu.
>
>2) It falsely inflates the sponsors queue, delaying upload of fixes by
>active Ubuntu Developers who just didn't happen to have upload rights
>to the package they fixed.
>
>    We'd do a lot better to try to promote developers joining the
>review team, and gathering and fixing as many of the already submitted
>patches as possible.  This work doesn't need to be split or sorted by
>packageset, and shoudn't be organised in such a way that it actively
>interferes with our developers getting their work uploaded.
>
>    One thought on a way to encourage this would be to change the
>phrasing "work on bug fixes and new packages" to "work on bug fixes
>and patch review" on the UbuntuDevelopers wiki page.  I'm sure there
>also are many other ways to point people in the right direction.
>
>1: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopers

"Sorry, you are not an Ubuntu developer, so your patch is not eligible for sponsorship. Unsubscribing ubuntu-sponsors.  Your patch will be reviewed by ubuntu-reviewers."

Is that the experience we are after? 

Scott K