Re: Clarify our position on forks (was: Re: Plan for tomorrow's FESCo meeting (2012-02-27 at 18UTC))

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 08:14:13AM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
>> Personally, my stance on this is that, provided that the forks are
>> properly renamed such that they will not conflict with other forks of
>> the same codebase, there's no reason to disallow them. As mentioned by
>> Toshio in the ticket, carrying forks provides a much better alternative
>> to bundled libraries in the situations where the primary codebase is
>> lacking certain features.
>
> There's exactly the same reason to avoid closely-related forks as there
> is to avoid embedded libraries - if you have a security issue you now
> have more places to fix the same bug. The question is whether that cost
> is larger or smaller than the gain from carrying the forked code.

There is one crucial difference: A maintainer of a forked code base
explicitly knows he is maintaining it; a maintainer of a software
package that happens to embed a library may not think about
maintaining the embedded library at all.
   Mirek
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux