RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 09:49:22AM -0400, Tim St Clair wrote:
> +1 
> 
> Trying to continually level set to the HEAD of Fedora has introduced patch sets
> which only continue to diverge over time.  Upstream(s) have expressed little/no
> interest in accepting some of these patches, and I can hardly blame them.  
> 
Fedora has long held that upstreams need to target latest versions.  not
bending to third party kernel modules that broke, not making library
packages contain their major version number like Debian, and so on.

This has been the accepted norm in some upstream communities as well.  The
python community, for instance, readily accepts patches that pull their code
forward to work with latest versions.  The only python project which didn't
do that was Zope and that caused zope to disappear and reformulate itself as
a quicker moving set of much smaller packages.

Anyhow, this makes the Hadoop anecdote an interesting counter point to me
:-)

-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20130723/6c3c980c/attachment.sig>