On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 16:44 -0400, Dave Jones wrote: > > In some cases 'never' will be a valid answer for 'when upstream?'. > Features that got vetoed (hi execshield!), or just distro-centric > changes that upstream doesn't care about. > > For anything else, I think patches that survive >1 release should > probably be eyed with suspicion. We're supposed to be "close to upstream" > after all, and if patches are lasting longer than that without good reason, > questions should probably be asked. This sounds like something we could work into the requirements list for SCM 2.0, something that will allow us to easily identify and audit the patch sets going into our packages, as well as integrate a signed-off-by or some such. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
