Le Ven 8 juin 2007 00:12, Toshio Kuratomi a écrit : >> 2. we don't really care what happened between two upstream releases, >> that's best traced in the upstream vcs, a giant changeset between >> them >> is more pertinent at the fedora level than all the upstream change >> history >> > We do when we're backporting a specific fix from upstream's > development > tree. > >> 3. we don't really care what happened on the packager system either, >> just what was pushed as a build (or attempted-to-built package) >> > I disagree with this one quite a bit. >> 4. we really do not want patches that stomp on each other >> > Actually, we do. IMHO you just don't realise a srpm content and the Fedora VCS are intended for very different audiences than an upstream VCS. Upstream VCS is for core developpers. You trace what changes were made, by whom, for what reasons and people who consult it are specialists who know the codebase. SRPMs and Fedora packaging VCSes have quite another target. It's : - "did Fedora break my trust in the upstream release" - "can I check quickly with no deep knowledge of upstream codebase nothing is obviously wrong" - "can I quickly revert a suspicious change" It's definitely not - "are Fedora patches are correct or useful fonctionnality-wise" - "why did the Packager did this thing" To this end you need: - small patches - which are not interdependant - and have little churn -- Nicolas Mailhot -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
