Hi,
On Tue, 2020-10-06 at 10:24 +0200, Jürg Billeter wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-09-28 at 17:33 +0900, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
[...]
> I think it's a reasonable generalization of the existing mechanism and
> there are scenarios where this is likely the best approach. The gnome-
> build-meta case seems like a good example as it makes sense to me that
> gnome-meta-build wants full control over all elements that are part of
> the upstream GNOME project, which includes GLib and GTK.
>
> However, in many scenarios working with upstream and/or forking the
> upstream project is still the better choice, in my opinion. E.g., if a
> downstream project author wants to add a configure option to an
> element, I wouldn't recommend overriding the whole element. Otherwise,
> all future changes to that element in the upstream project will be lost
> to the downstream project, without even a warning.
+1, I certainly agree.
I think it is worth an `.. attention::` block in the docs around this
feature to explain the benefits and downsides of this workflow, and
explain what scenarios are more and less suitable for it due to those
tradeoffs.
Cheers,
-Tristan
