On 20.11.2013 11:19, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 03:36:54PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> One note though, I think that in the past one of the discussion points we've
> foundered on is whether we want to be mirroring upstream's git repo or
> (approximately) upstream's releases. I think that's probably where we'd
> need to start discussion.
>From the point of view of patch management, I have a strong view here:
We should be mirroring upstream's git, if they have one.
The reason is that it makes it trivial to cherry pick upstream patches
on top of the Fedora branch.
So I'd arrange it by having a straight mirror of upstream, then have
our own 'fNN-branch' branches which contain the upstream releases
(ideally from upstream tags if they are using git sensibly) + our
cherry picked patches.
What you (and Daniel yesterday, and Karel, and ... likely everybody)
clarifying is the natural scheme:
fsource[XYZ][fNN].acls <- dist-git[XYZ][fNN].acls
dist-git[XYZ][fNN].patches <- XYZ[fNN-overlay] - XYZ[ref1]
dist-git[XYZ][fNN].source <- XYZ[ref1].tarball
dist-git[XYZ][fNN].changelog <- ~.filter(~.patches)
I have been thinking for intermediate steps with less resources
allocation, but obviously there are consensus across the maintainers
according the workable approach.