On 03/07/13 20:09, Jamie Nguyen wrote: > On 03/07/13 19:57, Axilleas Pipinellis wrote: >> 1) GitLab uses some forked gems. >> >> These are the forked gems by GitLab which add some extra functionality >> or fix some bugs of the original gem: >> >> Upstream | GitLab >> ------------------------------------- >> grit | gitlab-grit >> grack | gitlab-grack >> gollum-lib | gitlab-gollum-lib >> omniauth-ldap | gitlab_omniauth-ldap >> pygments.rb | gitlab-pygments.rb >> ------------------------------------- >> >> Vit Ondruch, my mentor, pointed me in these FESCO [4] and FPC [5] >> tickets, which pretty much conclude that: >> >> "FESCo is fine with forks as long as they are parallel installable and >> don't interfere with each other." >> >> and >> >> "The FPC does not see a need for additional guidelines relating to >> forks at this time, they should be treated like any other package." >> >> I also raised this issue in #fedora-devel today and they told me the >> same thing FESCo concluded. >> >> I think GitLab's forks don't abide by FESCo's verdict, as both original >> and forked gem are called with the same library, eg. require 'grit', so >> there is no distinction between them. >> >> I am cc'ing Sytse Sijbrandij from GitLab's core team to talk about what >> changes could be made in order for the forks to get accepted. > > If upstream don't fix it themselves, couldn't you just patch gitlab-grit > and gitlab so that it does "require 'gitlab-grit'" instead? Actually, ignore me! ;) -- Jamie Nguyen _______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
