Patches for trivial bugs sitting in bugzilla -> trivial patch policy?

Miloslav Trmač mitr at redhat.com
Fri Jun 27 15:55:37 UTC 2014


----- Original Message -----
> On 06/27/2014 08:26 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> 
> > I'm not sure if it's so great idea for all bugzillas. Some packagers
> > prefer to add patches first into upstream then carry a patch for many
> > releases.
> This consideration actually is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to
> bugs. The only thing that counts is Fedora end-user experience, to whom
> it's quite irrelevant who fixes a bug.
> 
> In other words, if bug affects users, these should be fixed in Fedora
> ASAP, no matter how.

That’s only in some ideal case where we can get all the manpower we might need.

Adding a non-upstream patch to a package by a non-owner of the package essentially commits the owner of the package to either push the patch upstream or to keep rebasing it on top of the upstream releases; something the package owner, based on past practice, didn’t sign up for and might never have time for.

It seems strange that we would be willing to impose such non-optional work on a package owner for a patch someone could have just as well sent upstream, when we don’t even impose such non-optional work on the package owner for things they are directly responsible for and have no other upstream, such as updating the package to follow changes in packaging guidelines.

That’s not to say that Fedora should never have non-upstream patches, nor even that provenpackagers should never apply non-upstream patches, but drive-by-patching by people who are not on the hook for long-term mainteinance should IMHO _strongly_ default to submitting patches upstream first or instead.
    Mirek


More information about the devel mailing list