New packager: Do the reviewer and the sponsor have to be the same

[Michael J Gruber]

I would like to help this poor soul get his package into Fedora:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860249

(adobe-source-code-pro-fonts)

I'm a packager but no sponsor, he's no packager (so needs a sponsor).
It's not clear to me whether I can just make a formal review and ask a
sponsor to say "yes", or the new packager needs an actual review from a
sponsor (different pages seem to disagree somewhat on this).

An old request for sponsorship on the fonts-SIG list has not been
answered so far, which is why I'm trying to help this way.

Michael

[Susi Lehtola]

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 16:30:04 +0100
Michael J Gruber <mjg(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:
>  I would like to help this poor soul get his package into Fedora:
>  
>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860249
>  
>  (adobe-source-code-pro-fonts)
>  
>  I'm a packager but no sponsor, he's no packager (so needs a sponsor).
>  It's not clear to me whether I can just make a formal review and ask a
>  sponsor to say "yes", or the new packager needs an actual review from
>  a sponsor (different pages seem to disagree somewhat on this).
>  
>  An old request for sponsorship on the fonts-SIG list has not been
>  answered so far, which is why I'm trying to help this way. 
Well, my opinion is: go for it. IMHO it's a lot easier to sponsor
someone who already has shown his/her packaging skills. It's just less
work for the sponsor... providing the review is of good quality.

Now, of course the package won't make it into the repo before the
packager has been sponsored.
-- 
Susi Lehtola
Fedora Project Contributor
jussilehtola(a)fedoraproject.org

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le Lun 21 janvier 2013 16:47, Susi Lehtola a écrit :
>  On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 16:30:04 +0100
>  Michael J Gruber <mjg(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:
> > I would like to help this poor soul get his package into Fedora:
> >
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860249
> >
> > (adobe-source-code-pro-fonts)
> >
> > I'm a packager but no sponsor, he's no packager (so needs a sponsor).
> > It's not clear to me whether I can just make a formal review and ask a
> > sponsor to say "yes", or the new packager needs an actual review from
> > a sponsor (different pages seem to disagree somewhat on this).
> >
> > An old request for sponsorship on the fonts-SIG list has not been
> > answered so far, which is why I'm trying to help this way.
>
>  Well, my opinion is: go for it. IMHO it's a lot easier to sponsor
>  someone who already has shown his/her packaging skills. It's just less
>  work for the sponsor... providing the review is of good quality.
>
>  Now, of course the package won't make it into the repo before the
>  packager has been sponsored. 
The request looks good, if I had more free time to help a new packager I
wouldn't have a problem sponsoring him. As things stand I would be an
absentee sponsor which is something I want to avoid.

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot

[Michael Schwendt]

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 16:30:04 +0100, Michael J Gruber wrote:

>  I would like to help this poor soul get his package into Fedora:
>  
>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860249
>  
>  (adobe-source-code-pro-fonts)
>  
>  I'm a packager but no sponsor, he's no packager (so needs a sponsor).
>  It's not clear to me whether I can just make a formal review and ask a
>  sponsor to say "yes", or the new packager needs an actual review from a
>  sponsor (different pages seem to disagree somewhat on this). 
Which pages?

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process#Reviewer
|
| If it is the first package of a Contributor, the Reviewer must be a Sponsor

However, there's always room for negotiation and ignoring the process.

>  An old request for sponsorship on the fonts-SIG list has not been
>  answered so far, 
Disappointing.
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/fonts/2012-November/001528.html
Indeed.

I'm not familiar with font packages. Above is the first one, which I've
examined briefly. The first comments in the review request about "tone of
voice" are confusing and not so encouraging, IMO.

-- 
M
Fedora release 18 (Spherical Cow) - Linux 3.7.2-204.fc18.x86_64
loadavg: 0.21 0.18 0.14

[Haïkel Guémar]

Le 21/01/2013 16:30, Michael J Gruber a écrit :
>  I would like to help this poor soul get his package into Fedora:
>
>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860249
>
>  (adobe-source-code-pro-fonts)
>
>  I'm a packager but no sponsor, he's no packager (so needs a sponsor).
>  It's not clear to me whether I can just make a formal review and ask a
>  sponsor to say "yes", or the new packager needs an actual review from a
>  sponsor (different pages seem to disagree somewhat on this).
>
>  An old request for sponsorship on the fonts-SIG list has not been
>  answered so far, which is why I'm trying to help this way.
>
>  Michael 
I think there's no problem for doing informal reviews, as long as your
review is ok, the sponsor could just approve it.
You could also advise him to do informal reviews on other packages and
add the links in their own reviews as many sponsors request this to
check new packagers skills and understanding of packaging.
It both helps the packager in fixing his packages, improving his skills
and the sponsor who could spend less time in doing reviews and either
spend more time in mentoring or sponsoring other packagers.

best regards,
H.

[Michael Schwendt]

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 18:11:39 +0100, Haïkel Guémar wrote:

>  I think there's no problem for doing informal reviews, as long as
> your
>  review is ok, the sponsor could just approve it. 
Yes, there is no "sponsor must be the first reviewer" rule.

Anyone can post feedback to review requests. Only the sponsor can approve
the package, however. Effectively, the sponsor would still need to review
earlier reviews and do a final review - sort of.

With regard to review bug 860249 the 

   https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Font_package_lifecycle

page suggests that the reviewer has "good knowledge of font packaging
policies," It also mentions the "repo-font-audit" tool, which complains
about a couple of things. Same for the adobe-source-sans-pro-fonts
package, but its review does not mention repo-font-audit:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/845743

>  You could also advise him to do informal reviews on other packages
> and
>  add the links in their own reviews as many sponsors request this to
>  check new packagers skills and understanding of packaging.
>  It both helps the packager in fixing his packages, improving his skills
>  and the sponsor who could spend less time in doing reviews and either
>  spend more time in mentoring or sponsoring other packagers. 
Well, a lot of mentoring happens during reviewing, either in bugzilla or
via different communication channels.

-- 
Fedora release 18 (Spherical Cow) - Linux 3.7.2-204.fc18.x86_64
loadavg: 0.28 0.17 0.15