"Staying close to upstream"
Jon Ciesla
limb at jcomserv.net
Fri Aug 13 16:42:01 UTC 2010
On 08/13/2010 10:47 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> No. No SIG's have any authority whatsoever over individual package
>> maintainers outside the packages the team maintains. No one needs to
>> "comply" with your requirements.
> That's exactly Fedora's organizational problem.
>
> KDE SIG should have authority over anything KDE-related. Likewise, the Perl
> SIG should have authority over anything Perl-related: if the Perl SIG
> decides that a new Perl developer @ RH should have commit access to all
> perl-* packages, it should be their decision to do so, it was really
> counterproductive of FESCo to interfere with that!
>
So if someone writes a KDE plugin for Application XYZ, it becomes a KDE
package? What?
My understanding of the SIG concept was that they were groups of people
who were self-organizing around a particular theme to further that theme
in Fedora, i.e. Games, Live Upgrade, KDE, etc. I never got the
impression that they were little fiefdoms with absolute power.
This is shades of the Federal-power vs. State's Rights debate in the
U.S. And for similar reasons, it seems.
-J
>> If you want a integrated experience, don't work around upstream. Push
>> your patches and get it merged there.
> Good luck getting Mozilla to accept anything. Just like the kernel, they're
> a very hard to work with upstream. If you don't know the right people, your
> stuff just doesn't get in. :-(
>
> Providing system integration is exactly what a distribution is for. You will
> never achieve an integrated experience by just throwing together disparate
> upstream tarballs.
>
> Kevin Kofler
>
--
- in your fear, speak only peace
in your fear, seek only love
-d. bowie
More information about the devel
mailing list