[aur-general] Adding new TUs - Was: TU Application
Ronald van Haren
pressh at gmail.com
Thu Oct 9 14:10:42 EDT 2008
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Allan McRae <allan at archlinux.org> wrote:
> Ronald van Haren wrote:
>> First of all, I think the group is growing to fast. If Evangelos is
>> accepted, I think we are close to 25% increase in group size in about
>> 1 month. Sure, it is a good thing if we increase the size of the TU
>> group, but we also need to worry about quality. Every new TU has to go
>> through a learning curve, making mistakes in the progress.
> Remember there was a whole heap of new devs going through a bit of a
> learning curve not long ago... As long as all new TU's ask questions when
> they are unsure about anything and we are free to answer their questions, we
> should not run into problems that are too hard to fix.
that is actually a good point. As long as they ask questions if unsure
there most likely will not be any major breakages. And if the sponsor
takes a look at the first couple of packages the new TU uploads to
[community] everything is likely to be okay.
> However, I do agree that it is becoming difficult for us to judge people
> based on their packages. Most people just do not have enough and those they
> do have are mainly adopted orphans rather packages of their own. This is
> fair enough - in my time here I have only added four or five packages to the
> If an existing TU knows an applicant then that is good, but we do not want
> this to be a rule. (In fact, someone pointed out that it seemed to be a
> necessity just today: http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=56534). I
> do not know how to get around this. So, how can we judge new applicants?
I don't mind people knowing eachother, though that may never be a
reason to sponsor somebody who you would otherwise not sponsor. How to
judge people? I'd say mainly on the PKGBUILDs, preferebly at least ~20
and preferebly a couple of them self added.
Further if someone is highly active on the bugtracker, submitting
patches and so, that would be another good sign someone is capable of
maintaining packages (at least capable of fixing thins if something
needs to be patched). Other linux or arch related activities can count
as a bonus IMHO.
Though I hardly doubt we can come up with a guideline for such things,
there are just too many variables.
More information about the aur-general