"Staying close to upstream"

[Jon Ciesla]

  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