Just replying to this one point:
On 10/11/2015 02:29 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> 3. There is a common credo (which I do not adher to) in Fedora that upstream
> should be followed blindly ("upstream, upstream, upstream").
My interpretation of this is completely different than yours. :)
To me it is not at all about blindly following upstream. To me
"upstream, upstream, upstream" means that if we want to change
something in code, we should try and land our changes upstream first.
This is always not easy; sometimes it requires working with upstream and
fixing things that were discovered during code review; other times it
requires making fixes more generic than are needed for Fedora in order
to make them suitable for upstream inclusion. That all often leads to us
becoming part of upstream.
And that is a good thing, because the more involved we are with upstream
the more we are able to influence upstream so that changes that land
there work for Fedora.
I'll say it once more because it feels good to be ranting on a mailing
list. :) It is not at all about blindly following upstream. It is about
sharing the code following open source principles, and making sure we
don't effectively end up with downstream forks.
It's not easy, but it pays off in the end.
--
Kalev
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
