Le vendredi 08 juin 2007 à 11:50 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi a écrit : > On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 14:05 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > It's definitely not > > - "are Fedora patches are correct or useful fonctionnality-wise" > > - "why did the Packager did this thing" > > > Disagree wholeheartedly. I don't just take upstream releases and > package them. I also code bugfixes, backport fixes, and make changes to > the default configs. When applicable, I submit these changes to > upstream. Seeing as this is code developed against the source tree, I > want to be able to track the changes I make in a VCS. Simply adding and > removing patches in CVS is not very good for this. Working with those > patches against the exploded tree is much better. But that's the VCS usefulness for you as individual packager, not its usefulness for upstream (just wants ready-to-push patches) for fedora users (just want to be able to do quick audits) or other fedora packagers (as far as I know we never have more than one people working on changes on the same package between two koji builds) Therefore, what would tracking all those changes in a public VCS instead of a private branch would accomplish? It would only flood the Fedora commit list & VCS with all your private code attempts, and make harder to identify shipped patches among all the other noise/activity (bad for everyone but you) If you actually look at the information you want published (not your local developer undo/redo queue), is it so much different from what we're already publishing today ? Exploded view may make the changes easier to grasp, but do we *actually* need any datapoint apart from each package build state published? -- Nicolas Mailhot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
