Hi there,
Following the guideline here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_sponsor_a_new_contributor#Becoming_a_Fedora_Package_Collection_Sponsor
I'd like to become a package sponsor. I've been a packager for many years (pcp, redis, and a number of other packages), and am working toward bringing a new contributor up to 'packager' level (agerstmayr). I've been involved with quite a few package reviews - most recently the new grafana package and many of its dependent packages.
cheers.
+1 from me
Had the pleasure of working closely with Nathan and he'd be a great sponsor.
He's also involved in maintaining 39 packages in fedora:
It's been 9 days and only +1 here.
We didn't post a summary of reviews:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?component=Package%20Review&email1=nathans%40redhat.com&emailassigned_to1=1&emailtype1=substring&list_id=10191267&query_format=advanced
I'm +1. Since we didn't post a summary perhaps we go a few more days?
+1 here
+1
Sorry to say this, but I'm -1.
The grafana review doesn't have any substantial comments from Nathan, he seems to have done only the final approval while all the heavy lifting was done by Xavier.
trezor-common should not have been approved, it ships the same udev rules file as python3-trezor.
The rest are trivial Golang reviews. I'd recommend Nathan to do some additional non-trivial reviews of packages written in languages other than Go.
grafana review [...] seems to have done only the final approval while all the heavy lifting was done by Xavier.
While it may seem that way, this is not the case. I worked with Mark on the package for the duration of the review - we are geographically close and discussed it on extensively on IRC, so it turned out that much review feedback was not reflected in the BZ. The review revealed that a number of dependent packages were needed, and I worked with Mark to ensure all were packaged and we now co-maintain many of them.
Thanks for your feedback though @rathann - I'll certainly be looking for other reviews I can bring my experiences to bear on.
grafana review [...] seems to have done only the final approval while all the heavy lifting was done by Xavier. While it may seem that way, this is not the case. I worked with Mark on the package for the duration of the review - we are geographically close and discussed it on extensively on IRC, so it turned out that much review feedback was not reflected in the BZ.
While it may seem that way, this is not the case. I worked with Mark on the package for the duration of the review - we are geographically close and discussed it on extensively on IRC, so it turned out that much review feedback was not reflected in the BZ.
Alright, I suspected as much, but there was hardly any trace of it in the BZ ticket. Thanks for confirming and please make sure your review work is visible publicly in the future.
The review revealed that a number of dependent packages were needed, and I worked with Mark to ensure all were packaged and we now co-maintain many of them.
Yes, the process was quite involved and a lot of work was put into doing it properly from what I read.
Still, that's just one non-trivial review. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_sponsor_a_new_contributor#Becoming_a_Fedora_Package_Collection_Sponsor sets the bar at five. While the grafana review may count for a lot, it's not enough in my opinion.
You're welcome.
I see 6 +1's and 1 -1, so that passes the 'at least +3' test, so this request is approved.
Use your powers wisely.
Metadata Update from @kevin: - Issue close_status updated to: accepted - Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)
Login to comment on this ticket.