[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Savannah-hackers-public] "task #14222: Submission of Ad Reaper"
From: |
Bob Proulx |
Subject: |
Re: [Savannah-hackers-public] "task #14222: Submission of Ad Reaper" |
Date: |
Tue, 9 Jan 2024 17:43:09 -0700 |
Hello Paul,
It's great to see you helping out with things!
Paul Walker wrote:
> https://savannah.nongnu.org/task/?14222 - I realise I'm rather late
> to the party, but - it seems to hit all the points mentioned in
> https://savannah.gnu.org/maintenance/HowToGetYourProjectApprovedQuickly/
>
> Did I miss something which means it's not been responded to? Or did
> it just fall through the cracks?
I am a terrible person because I rarely work on project submissions.
I don't know anything about the past history on who looked at that
submission before. But I look at it now and it is literally just two
shell scripts. That's quite tiny for a GNU Project package.
The vision for Savannah is that people will submit projects that might
one day be an official GNU Project package. Or maybe never. And
that's okay too. But generally significant sized projects. Very tiny
things that are just a single shell script or two have a high overhead
because they have to be reviewed and maintained and such. And so on
the basis of that submission being so small I myself would have been
thinking very hard about whether it was suitable or not.
There has been a lot of discussion and some activity on the idea of
the GNU Project setting up a more hands-off self-service software
forge for hosting whatever the user wants much more like some of the
non-free commercial sites do now. I think it will happen at some
point. But there isn't anything to point at yet. When that happens
then I would be pointing the single shell script projects to that site
instead.
Hope this helps to explain one of the possible reasons that submission
didn't get any traction. Probably there was not an excess of reviewer
time and so that one just slipped through. Which is definitely a poor
reflection on us as reviewers. We should do better.
That's one of the reasons I am excited to see that you are taking an
interest in helping out! Perhaps you might subscribe to this mailing
list and contribute! It would really help out. :-)
Bob