On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 14:27 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Jesse Keating (jkeating@xxxxxxxxxx) said: > > > However, the solution they arrive at is similar to what we want. That's > > > why looking at it is good. > > > > I think it's important to note that having exploaded trees with patch > > management doesn't exclude generating a srpm with prestine source +patches to > > send into the buildsystem and publish in our source repos. What we're > > talking about is making it easier to manage the patches on top of the > > prestine source. > > The question is... how much does working in an exploded tree push you towards > less incentive to get a set of patches and changes upstream. > That is a good question. I could be optimistic and rephrase it though: Is there an incentive to get your changes upstream even when working in an exploded tree? I think the answer is yes because even though it makes carrying a local patchset from one upstream release to another less effort it doesn't make the rebase free. You still have to do work when upstream introduces conflicting changes. The exploded tree just makes it easier to see what changes were made and how they relate to your changes. > Heck, we could just work in exploded source and start claiming we *are* > the upstream... > Distributed Revision Control does make that possible. However, 1) Do we want the burden of being upstream to another project? 2) Has that happened to Linus's kernel, xorg, mercurial, bzr, darcs, or any of the other projects storing their source in a DRCS? -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
