| 1 |
On Monday 21 November 2005 09:39, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 2 |
> Ned Ludd wrote: |
| 3 |
> | On Sun, 2005-11-20 at 14:45 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 4 |
> |>Our policy for X is that if upstream won't accept it, we won't either. |
| 5 |
> |>Perhaps you'd be interested in adopting that and convincing the reported |
| 6 |
> |>to get upstream interested? |
| 7 |
> | |
| 8 |
> | Your policy for X is somewhat questionable Donnie as it puts us in a |
| 9 |
> | catch 22. You wont accept patches unless they came from upstream and |
| 10 |
> | upstream wants some testing or to put it off till a later date..It's a |
| 11 |
> | continuing heartache dealing with X when something could of been fixed |
| 12 |
> | months ago. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Upstream CVS is the location for testing, not distros. Distributions |
| 15 |
> should have a _more_ stable version of packages than unreleased CVS, not |
| 16 |
> less. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> In addition, we're in the business of packaging source, not maintaining |
| 19 |
> source. Taking on maintainance of all the source we package is |
| 20 |
> unrealistic and is not why I do Gentoo. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I think one should look at this as there being three kinds of patches: |
| 23 |
- Those that add new features. If they are not upstream maintained they don't |
| 24 |
belong in the tree. |
| 25 |
- Those that fix bugs. If the bugs are real and the patches are reasonable in |
| 26 |
quality and fix the bugs they help the users make things work. |
| 27 |
- Those that do a mix of things. Only in extreme cases useful, but in general |
| 28 |
should be split out into the specific things they do. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Paul |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 34 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 35 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 36 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives