On Sun, 2021-11-21 at 11:18 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
I don't think we have a good process for the situation you're in. If
package you were interested in were entirely new, or if you were
a package which wsa retired (the step beyond "orphan"), you'd file
through the package review process in bugzilla, and at that point if
hadn't found a sponsor yet, the docs suggest that the sponsor's
system is the next step.
So what I have figured out from the experiences of others who have
shared with me is I can just do a PR for the fix I think will work for
said package and submit it that way. Thus support in an unoffical
capacity, which is entirely acceptable in my opinion, but it isn't a
documented route nor a formal one, just one that works.
But without those first steps, how do you get there?
Probably the most straightforward is to pick one of the other routes
to become a co-maintainer of an existing package, or find something
you're interested in. Or, go through a number of code reviews for
packages and get to know the folks who are working on those, at which
it should be easy to ask them personally to sponsor you.
I guess that is along the lines of what I was saying above and what
others have suggested to me in the past on this topic.
I know this feels like kind of _a lot_, when you just want to help
picking up something that's dropped. But the thing is, once you're in
pcakaging group, you have a lot of latitude to make a lot of
decisions. It's not so much a matter of "do we trust you as a person"
is "have you demonstrated that you understand a lot of the nuance and
complication of packaging and working in our environment."
Yeah so I get this without question and understand emphatically even.
In what I do (Industrial Automation and Machine building) you can spend
years doing the "same thing" differently each time.
If you'd prefer a less-heavy way to just make a package
that too, in Copr. There, you can just get started and do it.
Been thinking about that very thing for PLC4X maybe.
I do think we need to help build a greater pool of people with the
skills, time, and ability to mentor new packagers -- sponsorship with
support, not just as a checkbox. We've got some awesome folks who do
but... it _is_ a special skill and _definitely_ time consuming. So
area I know we need to invest in.
I still think a lot of what Mentors and Sponsors
could be satisfied the
applicant had a particular set of abilities if they had to get through
some form of app based intruction and test possibly even broken down
into the separate steps of packaging maintenance. With feedback to the
newb and validation testing that would give at least a level of
confidence to the community too. Let's be honest, we want involvement
but all of us want a working Distro more than making it "easier" to get
involved. And getting involved is what we're discussing here, whether
me or others feeling like. To my way of thinking, it's not that the
complexity is a deterent, normally the opposite for most technically
oriented people AFAICT. It is really the lack of a map, which itself
doesn't need to be a hand held journey, just sign posts. Maybe this is
documentation, but I am really reluctant to just chalk it up to that
entirely. So we are talking the same I think but from the opposite side
of the discussion, and this does seem to be the way everyone feels when
this topic comes up.
But... I hope the above helps explain how
things are now in practice.
Yes, it is clear in some ways as to why it is done the way it is done
WRT the packages themselves and the requirements of Fedora Linux,
licensing included. What is not clear is how to get from the starting
point most of us have. Which is not hired by RH, or not working at a
company that specifically uses Fedora Linux as part of their business
model. Don't take that wrong either, I entirely appreciate RH et al for
their much needed support, as I would imagine the greater community
does too. But I also appreciate the efforts of each and every non-
business related contributor (ie they don't get paid directly to work
on that thing for Fedora Linux), because quite frankly without them
there likely wouldn't be a Fedora Linux and we'd just be running RHEL
community, so not so delightedly near bleeding edge.
In any case I will keep plugging away, maybe just try to get it to
build and issue a PR with my solution. But it's currently orphaned with
no maintainer AFAIK.
Fedora Project Leader
devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: