On Monday 21 November 2005 09:39, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > Ned Ludd wrote: > | On Sun, 2005-11-20 at 14:45 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > |>Our policy for X is that if upstream won't accept it, we won't either. > |>Perhaps you'd be interested in adopting that and convincing the reported > |>to get upstream interested? > | > | Your policy for X is somewhat questionable Donnie as it puts us in a > | catch 22. You wont accept patches unless they came from upstream and > | upstream wants some testing or to put it off till a later date..It's a > | continuing heartache dealing with X when something could of been fixed > | months ago. > > Upstream CVS is the location for testing, not distros. Distributions > should have a _more_ stable version of packages than unreleased CVS, not > less. > > In addition, we're in the business of packaging source, not maintaining > source. Taking on maintainance of all the source we package is > unrealistic and is not why I do Gentoo.
I think one should look at this as there being three kinds of patches: - Those that add new features. If they are not upstream maintained they don't belong in the tree. - Those that fix bugs. If the bugs are real and the patches are reasonable in quality and fix the bugs they help the users make things work. - Those that do a mix of things. Only in extreme cases useful, but in general should be split out into the specific things they do. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net
pgpy9DYpn1xAc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
