On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 9:44 AM Michael Catanzaro <mcatanzaro@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 27 2021 at 11:04:01 PM -0800, Adam Williamson > <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > For me this seems like kind of a non-starter unless these are merged > > upstream. I do not think it makes sense for Fedora to carry these > > patches downstream long-term. If this is a good implementation of a > > good feature, it should be merged upstream. If it isn't, we shouldn't > > carry it downstream. > > Yeah let's start by getting the code upstream, that would be step one > before proposing a Fedora change proposal. > I'm fine with the Change proposal being made, as it gives us a holistic view of things. We can always pre-condition it on the code being upstreamed and then proceed with the rest of the enablement. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
