Role of the Sponsorship Queue

Daniel Holbach daniel.holbach at
Thu Mar 4 10:51:39 GMT 2010

On 04.03.2010 11:26, Emmet Hikory wrote:
>     Let me put this a different way.  I think the entire concept of a
> sponsorship queue is completely without merit unless we intend to
> differentiate between classes of patches using this queue.  Asking
> random folk to learn how to subscribe some team is just adding extra
> burden on patch submitters.  Let's drop it completely if we're not
> differentiating.
>     Now, I happen to believe that it's worth having a sponsors queue.
> I remember when we didn't have one.  We created it specifically so
> that those developers who didn't yet have upload rights to a given
> package could get priority for reviews of their candidate packages
> (which at the time primarily consisted of collections of the
> previously unreviewed patches).  If we don't wish to fast-track
> uploads for developers, that's fine, but I believe that we'll end up
> back in the days when people just repeatedly posted on IRC when they
> had a debdiff, and I think that's a waste of the submitters time and
> the time of anyone reading iRC (either in real-time or in logs).

I too remember when we didn't have a Sponsoring Queue and it's not where
I want to go back to. :-)

If we didn't have 2000 bugs with patches, I personally feel we could
very well live without a sponsoring queue and just have a look at the
list of incoming patches. As I see it right now the sponsorship process
helps us to not fish in the dark and it ensures that we're looking at
bugs where the problem is well-understood and deal with genuine patches
as opposed to random files (we could discuss further measures to make
sure the quality is good enough). Also do 'workflow bugs' go into
Sponsoring if necessary.

The process might not be perfect but, given the reality we're living in,
addresses the biggest problems we have.

Have a great day,

More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list