On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Erm, what complaint? That it's dead? I've never heard that one before. > Mostly, people seem to complain when it gets changed, not when it > doesn't. The gods of irony are pleased indeed. However, this maybe a case where it would be good to try to better define the roles of Fedora packager versus upstream developer. If there are patches that could be cherry-picked out of upstream git that close some issues, that would be a worthwhile thing for a package comaintainer to do without getting in the way of upstream project development focus. We like that fact that upstream developers are also package maintainers, but we need to recognize the fact that there really is a difference in focus and that there could be additional work needed to be both. It would probably be useful in this case for someone to approach Lennert about collaborating as a package comaintainer and take the responsibility of choosing which git patches to pick and spin up testing updates accordingly. -jef"There is a difference between a dead upstream project and a dead package. I myself cultivate Fedora packages for projects with essentially dead upstreams, and the users of those packages..cough..revelation..cough..continue to stick heads in the ground blithely unaware that they continue to rely on a dead codebase..at their own peril"spaleta -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
