Notice of intent: patching glibc

Jef Spaleta jspaleta at gmail.com
Tue Sep 6 23:27:15 UTC 2011


On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> wrote:

> Well, yes, that parallel came up in my mind too, but really, the two
> aren't particularly similar. I don't think there's any intent to
> obfuscate in the case of the glibc spec, it's simply done the way that
> seemed convenient to its maintainers at the time. Note the Fedora kernel
> package is a normal source / split out patches set. I'm not sure that
> whole kerfuffle is particularly relevant to Fedora.
>
>
 Let me turn that on its head.

As more projects become git based over time, the preferred form for code
development might actually be a bisectable git checkout and not broken out
patchsets for some projects. I'm not sure the distribution and packaging
model that we collectively understand now and which grew up in the cvs and
svn dominated era fits really well in the git dominated era.  I think we are
still groping around trying to figure out what the "preferred form" really
is in the git dominated era. I'm not sure the broken out patchset will be
it. It might soon be considered a legacy format in some situations.

-jef
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20110906/386a0cd7/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the devel mailing list