On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 02:50:21PM -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > > Just to be clear....you want a distro-specific point of view..about a > distro-agnostic coordination process when packages across > distributions fork due to a dead upstream. > The gods of irony are pleased. > > Anything more than the following as a Fedora policy is needless micromanagement: > > 0) Oh crap... the stated upstream for a package you maintain is dead. > Decide if the package should be orphaned or not. Set a Fedora tracking > ticket indicating a dead upstream for a component. > > 1) Not orphaned? Look around and see if other distros are using a > common defacto upstream. Use the defacto upstream if it exists and > encourage them to formalize their commitment as an official upstream > to begin integrating distro specific forking. Clear the Fedora > tracking ticket with a comment. > > 2) If not, invite other distro maintainers to have a discussion about > how to formalize a common upstream to begin the unforking process. If > everyone can agree on a common upstream, use that and clear the Fedora > tracking ticket with a comment referencing the discussion for the new > upstream. Recommend using freedesktop's distribution list as neutral > territory for the discussion if needed. Though if you have to have > neutral territory to hold a discussion, then i daresay that's a sign > that its going to be a pretty tough negotiation to reach a consensus. > > 3) If consensus can't be reached on how to build a common upstream... > choose whatever distribution fork you feel best meets the needs of > Fedora and use it as the upstream going forward. If you have to take > over as upstream developer of a fork...setup whatever hosting instance > you feel is best as an upstream location. Clear the Fedora project > ticket with a comment referencing the failed discussion on how to find > a common upstream. > > What matters is that a Fedora maintainer make the best effort to avoid > unnecessarily maintaining a forked codebase. But if it has to be > done, then they have the freedom to setup the parameters of that > upstream project however they like. Being able to reference a > credible attempt at creating a common upstream, should satisfy any > need for a 'don't be evil' review of a maintainer's actions on a > case-by-case basis. Looks good to me. -- Pat -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
