On 08/13/2010 08:58 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > But sometimes the maintainers of individual package maintainers have to cave > in to allow for a coordinated distribution experience. That's why we are a > distribution and not a bunch of packages thrown together. Coordinated distribution experience requires requests and collaboration and not demands. You will have to change your approach. >> If non upstream patches is needed, it requires someone to take ownership >> of keeping the patches updated for the kernel updates. If you are >> volunteering to do that work, please talk to the kernel developers. > I would, but my experience is that they'll probably say "no" anyway. I know > it has been offered in the past, for various out-of-tree patches and kernel > modules, they only accepted it in very few cases (e.g. for Hans de Goede's > webcam driver stuff because he also worked on getting the stuff merged > upstream, not just into Fedora; but it's far from easy for somebody who's > not already an experienced upstream kernel developer to manage that, LKML is > a tough place: there's politics making it hard for new contributors to get > their stuff in, there are many rules (technical, cosmetic (i.e. code > formatting rules), and social) you have to learn over the time, and the > kernel is also a hard codebase to work with in the first place; it's a lot > easier to regularly rebase a patch than to make it palatable to upstream, > that's why there are so many out-of-tree patchsets). That is also why so many out of tree patchsets do not have the quality of what is in upstream. They have not gone through the feedback cycle to get them fixed. Similar to packages in the repo vs not. Noone wants to take on more patches and carry them forward without ownership and a timeline to get those patches merged. If you are not willing to do that work and yes it is tough, then you don't get to demand anything either. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
