Differences between revisions 2 and 3
Revision 2 as of 2012-01-17 23:23:20
Size: 9533
Editor: ?ArnoToell
Comment:
Revision 3 as of 2012-01-17 23:28:06
Size: 9543
Editor: ?ArnoToell
Comment:
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 113: Line 113:
{{{
Line 117: Line 118:
}}}

SUMMARY

We plan to ask for the creation of a new pseudo-package debian-mentors or mentors.debian.org [3] (contact: debian-mentors@lists.debian.org) in Debian's bug tracking system (the name is still subject to change). A workflow for handling sponsoring requests is proposed below. It is based on an earlier discussion on the debian-mentors list[1].

The workflow will also be made available on [2].

  1. http://lists.debian.org/s2svcsm447s.fsf@bistromathics.mathi.uni-heidelberg.de

  2. http://wiki.debian.org/Mentors/BTS

  3. mentors.debian.net is not a .org service (yet). We do not intend to
    • push its transition by that right now.

RATIONALE

Currently there are three ways to ask for sponsorship of an upload to the Debian archive: uploads can be requested via a packaging team, via private mail to a (known) developer or via public mail to the debian-mentors lists.

Sponsorship in teams can work very well, for example in the Debian Perl Group, but some other teams do have a lack of developers. For these people and maintainers of packages that do not fit in any existing team, the only way to ask for sponsorship is often the third route: the debian-mentors lists. However the current procedure is (too often?) disappointing for both sponsorees [1][2], but also for developers who lost any interest in sponsoring packages.

Problems with the current handling of debian-mentors requests include in our opinion:

  • RFS mails are lost in space due to the high volume of requests. Many
    • requests are ignored or never get any feedback.
  • Comments and prior reviews may be lost or forgotten, or remain
    • unhonoured when the maintainer opens a new RFS thread instead of replying to the last.
  • Nobody knows answers to questions such as "how many packages are out
    • there which are seeking an uploader" or "what is the status of a particular RFS" without looking through mailing list archives.[3]
  • Duplication of comments on the debian-mentors list and
    • mentors.debian.net. (those should die anyway, or at least be synchronized)

We propose to use the BTS to handle sponsoring requests. Both sponsorees and sponsors should already be familiar with its usage and we hope it will improve the sponsoring process for both sides. It will also make it easier to analyse sponsoring (e.g. number of requests without a response).

We hope this will make it easier to sponsors to seek requests that still need attention and encourages more developers to sponsor uploads. We also hope to encourage peer-review of packages by other non-developers. Further suggestions on improvements or simply reasons why you do not sponsor uploads or what other problems you have with the current procedure or our proposed workflow are of course welcome.

  1. http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2012/01/msg00334.html

  2. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/05/msg00753.html

  3. http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2011/09/msg00126.html

= PROPOSED WORKFLOW =

In general all mails should be sent to the RFS request (nnn@bugs.debian.org). Please also Cc the submitter (nnn-submitter@bugs.debian.org). A copy will be sent to the mailing list automatically by the bug tracker.

ASKING FOR SPONSORSHIP

Once a source package has been prepared and made available (for example via [1]), file a new bug report against the debian-mentors pseudo-package:

  To: submit@bugs.debian.org
  Subject: RFS: hello/3.1-4 -- friendly greeter

  Package: debian-mentors
  Severity: normal (important for RC bugs, wishlist for new packages)

  Dear mentors,

  I am looking for a sponsor for my package "hello":

  dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/h/hello/hello_3.1-4.dsc

  It builds these binary packages:

    hello - friendly greeter

  More information about hello can be obtained from http://www.example.com.

  Changes since the last upload:

  hello (3.1-4) unstable; urgency=low
  
    * Adopt package. (Closes: #123457)
    * Fix typo in package description. (Closes: #123456)

   -- J. Maintainer <j@example.com>  Sat, 10 Dec 2011 22:17:05 +0100

  Regards,
  J. Maintainer

Please indicate in the subject if the package fixes RC bugs, is a QA or NMU upload or a new package:

  Subject: RFS: hello/1.0-1 [NEW] -- friendly greeter
  Subject: RFS: hello/1.0-3 [QA] -- friendly greeter
  Subject: RFS: hello/1.0-1.1 [NMU] [RC] -- friendly greeter
  Subject: RFS: hello/1.0-2 [RC] -- friendly greeter

Please keep track of the bug and respond to comments. If the bug was tagged moreinfo or wontfix and you think you have addressed the issues, please remove the respective tag again.

If you changed the package to address concerns, please send a follow-up to the sponsoring request (To: nnn@bugs.debian.org) that includes the URL to the source package and the last changelog entries similar to the initial request.

If there are issues with the upload after the bug was closed, for example when the package was rejected by the archive software, you can reopen the bug (again, please include references to the updated source package or ask for advice).

  1. http://mentors.debian.net

REVIEWING PACKAGES

Anybody feeling competent enough is invited to review sponsoring requests. You do not need to be a Debian Developer to do so.

Please send any comments to nnn@bugs.debian.org (Cc: nnn-submitter@bugs.d.o). You can use the following tags to indicate progress:

  • moreinfo: the package needs work before it can be uploaded
  • confirmed: the packaging looks sane (a very shallow first review)
  • wontfix: large problems or cannot not be uploaded at all.

If you intend to take care of the sponsoring request until the package is ready for upload, please consider setting yourself as the owner of the bug and tag the bug pending:

UPLOADING PACKAGES

After you uploaded a package, please close the bug report by sending a mail to nnn-done@bugs.debian.org. Do not close RFS bugs in debian/changelog. It is the sponsor who solves the issue, not the supplier of the package or anyhow related to the package itself.

NOTES

Inactive requests should be closed (semi-)automatically after a longer term of no activity (two weeks for requests tagged wontfix, six weeks for requests tagged moreinfo and six months for others). The same applies to uploaded packages for which the sponsor forgot to close the RFS bug.

TAGS

A short summary intended usage of tags:

  • moreinfo: open questions or changes are required before an upload.
  • confirmed: somebody did a brief review the package and it looks
    • sane. It can still have (smaller) issues that need to be fixed before an upload.
  • pending: somebody is willing to look after the package until it is
    • uploaded.
  • wontfix: large problems or cannot not be uploaded at all.

= IDEAS FOR FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS =

INTEGRATION WITH DEBEXPO (mentors.d.n)

  • There are plans to integrate a more formal workflow into Debexpo. For
    • example Debexpo could track BTS bugs, and decide actions based on tags.
  • It is important to synchronize any discussion (e.g. comments) between
    • the mailing list, the BTS and Debexpo. The current situation is a mess and even worse than any approach used before (i.e. comments on debian-mentors only).
  • Teams could automatically be informed about uploads of relevant
    • packages.
  • Sponsors could be informed about relevant packages being uploaded to
    • mentors.d.n (cf. [1] - some of that stuff is already implemented but not released yet)
  • Make it possible to file a new RFS request through mentors at least.

A tight integration of the code base is not possible due to lack of time of its maintainers (any help is appreciated!), but changing or introducing templates to reflect a new BTS workflow is possible immediately. Thus, the lack of code support on mentors.d.n side is certainly not a show stopper.

  1. http://wiki.debian.org/DebianMentorsNet#Maintainers.2BAC8-sponsorees

CRITICS

In previous discussions two main concerns were raised:

Why not use the wnpp pseudo-package?[1]

We believe a separate pseudo-package would be better as this would make it easy to direct sponsorship requests to the right people. The wnpp pseudo-package already has much traffic unrelated to this resulting in a lower signal-noise ratio.

Wouldn't a specialized application be better than using the BTS?[2]

People should already be familiar with the BTS. Using a special interface for sponsoring requests would create more inertia (and somebody would have to design such an application first). We hope however for a better integration in the debexpo software that runs mentors.debian.net in the future (of course this would also require someone working on it, see the previous section).

  1. http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2011/09/msg00166.html

  2. http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2011/09/msg00133.html