Clarify our position on forks (was: Re: Plan for tomorrow's FESCo meeting (2012-02-27 at 18UTC))

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Mon, 2012-02-27 at 08:07 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Kevin Fenzi wrote on 27.02.2012 04:21:
> > 
> > #topic #810 Clarify our position on forks .fesco 810
> 
> It's just a statement that is asked for in the ticket, but nevertheless:
> Shouldn't issues like this be discussed on this list first, so FESCo
> members can get a impression from the flamewar ^w discussion what the
> developer community thinks about the issue raised?
> 

Personally, my stance on this is that, provided that the forks are
properly renamed such that they will not conflict with other forks of
the same codebase, there's no reason to disallow them. As mentioned by
Toshio in the ticket, carrying forks provides a much better alternative
to bundled libraries in the situations where the primary codebase is
lacking certain features.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20120227/33cf2b2f/attachment.sig>