On Fri, 2013-01-04 at 23:29 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote: > On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 11:20 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Apart from all the bullshit about cars, which part of "it's part of > > upstream grub2" are you people not understanding? This is not our code. > > This is how grub2-mkconfig works. We are not going to get into the game > > of patching bootloader behaviour downstream again. You don't want grub2 > > to generate nested menus by default, you can go upstream and argue with > > the grub developers. Please keep this crap out of Fedora lists. > > Not that I care about the details of grub2 - still I don't understand > the above reasoning. If an user-visible aspect of the user experience > is "not our code" and doesn't belong on these lists, what _does_ > belong on Fedora-devel? After all there is a separate mailing list > even for Anaconda. Well, let's look at the recent threads: "Results of a test mass rebuild of rawhide/x86_64 with gcc-4.8.0-0.1.fc19" Hey look, that's about building the distribution. So, 'devel'oping 'fedora'. Seems relevant! "perl-podlators-2.5.0 in F19" notification of a change for dependent package builds: relevant! "Please review vdr-vnsiserver - VDR plugin to handle XBMC clients via VNSI" request for a package review: relevant! It's not like we're short of appropriate discussions. > And if we are not supposed to patch code shipped by upstreams, what > good can Fedora do at all? We provide upstream code in a unified set of repositories, tested to interact properly. Did I say that we're not supposed to patch code shipped by upstream? No. What I said - or rather, the belief my statement was based on, because this isn't exactly what I said - is that we don't generally carry permanent long-term downstream patches just to change upstream behaviour that we disagree with. This is a bad thing to do. Here's what our policies say: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment "All patches should have an upstream bug link or comment All patches in Fedora spec files SHOULD have a comment above them about their upstream status. Any time you create a patch, it is best practice to file it in an upstream bug tracker, and include a link to that in the comment above the patch." This is based on (and links to) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Staying_close_to_upstream_projects : "The Fedora Project focuses, as much as possible, on not deviating from upstream in the software it includes in the repository. The following guidelines are a general set of best practices, and provide reasons why this is a good idea, tips for sending your patches upstream, and potential exceptions Fedora might make. The primary goal is to share the benefits of a common codebase for end users and developers while simultaneously reducing unnecessary maintenance efforts." i.e., we try to avoid carrying patches permanently downstream, except in cases where we obviously have to patch something which it would not be appropriate to upstream (say, adding a Fedora logo to the login screen, or something). > (I can perhaps see a case for "we are not going to significantly > diverge from bootloader's upstream again", as a way to avoid repeating > the grub1 semi-fork. However applying it to the configuration of the > bootloader is a stretch.) > Mirek -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
