On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 03:27:15PM -0800, Jef Spaleta wrote: > On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Well, yes, that parallel came up in my mind too, but really, the two > > aren't particularly similar. I don't think there's any intent to > > obfuscate in the case of the glibc spec, it's simply done the way that > > seemed convenient to its maintainers at the time. Note the Fedora kernel > > package is a normal source / split out patches set. I'm not sure that > > whole kerfuffle is particularly relevant to Fedora. > > > > > Let me turn that on its head. > > As more projects become git based over time, the preferred form for code > development might actually be a bisectable git checkout and not broken out > patchsets for some projects. I'm not sure the distribution and packaging > model that we collectively understand now and which grew up in the cvs and > svn dominated era fits really well in the git dominated era. I think we are > still groping around trying to figure out what the "preferred form" really > is in the git dominated era. I'm not sure the broken out patchset will be > it. It might soon be considered a legacy format in some situations. While I agree with you, the glibc "big blob of patch" approach isn't in either of the preferred forms. Wishlist item: At the same time that RPM allows you to bundle a git repo, perhaps we can finally get rid of %changelog? Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones virt-top is 'top' for virtual machines. Tiny program with many powerful monitoring features, net stats, disk stats, logging, etc. http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-top -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
