fedora versus fedora test

[Christopher K. Johnson]

Mike A. Harris wrote:

>On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, Robin Green wrote:
>
>  
>
>>(Although, admittedly, the Fedora model is to try and make changes
>>upstream only as much as posssible, for most packages. I suspect that
>>    
>>
>
>I don't really see how that is any different than we do now 
>though.  For example, I'm not going to not fix bugs in XFree86 
>because XFree86.org hasn't checked a patch into CVS.  It could 
>take 8-12 months for that to happen.  Right now my XFree86 rpms 
>have over 120 patches in them, and future builds will have more 
>and more.  If it didn't then what would be my job for example?
>
>We don't really control upstream projects much, all we can do is 
>make sure to send our fixes and whatnot upstream.  But we 
>certainly should never wait until upstream projects apply our 
>fixes and release new versions of their software in order to ship 
>it.  That is just silly and needless lag.  The distro would never 
>be stable and/or would never ship.
>
>Patches are and always will be needed to fix bugs.
>
>  
>
And therein lies an essential role in providing a good distro - people who contribute to the stabilization of all the constituent parts, and the timely revision of relevant patch sets to produce viable packages as upstream changes occur.

A tip of the fedora to all of you maintainers who make quality releases possible.  ;)
 

-- 
Chris Johnson, RHCE #807000448202021