Requirements gathering for new package source control

[Michel Salim]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Jesse Keating wrote:
> At the upcoming FUDCon I plan to hold a session or two regarding
> requirements and discussions about the future of our package source
> control.  This is NOT a time to argue about one SCM being "better" than
> another.  I don't really want to hear any SCM names at all, rather I'm
> interested purely in only what we require and what we'd like out of our
> package source control.  I'm sending this mail to get people thinking
> about it, and to give the people who won't be at FUDCon a chance at
> dropping their thoughts in.
> 
...
> I'll be gathering feedback over the next few days and putting them into
> a not as of yet created wiki page.
> 
Being able to keep classify patches:
- - backports from upstream SCM
- - fixes for upstream, already forwarded (with integration to upstream
  bug-filing system if possible, or at least the bug report URL)
- - fixes for upstream, unsent (still being tested or cleaned-up)
- - Fedora-specific fixes, not to be forwarded

Regards,

- --
Michel Salim
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkhOYYQACgkQWt0J3fd+7ZBXVACeJNe4kLUXh4NTZ/S/Q2H4QHzQ
qPgAn1A1zt4AZHjz11LsAmJAekm06jX9
=caCJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----