Need a sponsor for beakerlib

[James Laska]

On Tue, 2010-04-13 at 12:55 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> >>>>> "AW" == Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> writes:
> 
> AW> I think it was just a thinko for 'review'.
> 
> In which case, why would a sponsor be required at all?  James is in the
> packager group, so he could just do the review.  According to the ticket
> in question, a sponsor for the packager is required (FE-NEEDSPONSOR is
> blocked).

I take it from your response that you're not interested in reviewing and
sponsoring this package review request?

Apologies if I have my facts wrong.  According to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process, since ...
     1. this is the first package up for review from pmuller
     2. and, I'm not a member of sponsor of the packager group ...
the review must be done by a Sponsor.  Since this review request was not
processed by a Sponsoer, I've provided my review comments to help the
discussion.

So the question stands, is there anyone interested in reviewing this
package (who is also sponsor in the packager group).  

Thanks,
James
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20100413/9fcb6d0f/attachment.bin