On 30 August 2011 10:58, James Westby <james.wes...@canonical.com> wrote: > On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:50:51 -0300, Christian Robottom Reis <k...@linaro.org> > wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 10:46:55AM -0500, Zach Pfeffer wrote: >> > Because we push everything upstream. >> >> While I agree with that blanket statement, there's no reason we wouldn't >> provide a [potentially temporary] version of repo that included the >> changes we're pushing upstream. >> >> We do this for every one of the components we ship, so I see no >> philosophical reason why we wouldn't do so for repo. >> >> Is there a technical reason? > > Nope, there are two things as I see it: > > 1. knowing the the patch will go upstream eventually, or being willing > to maintain a fork forever, or do the rework necessary to fix > it. There are also related social issues, such as the possibility of > being seen as a hostile fork shipping bad code or something. > > 2. Getting people to use our repo version with our trees. This is both > a time problem (that doesn't really go away with upstreaming,) and a > problem of inconveniencing people who are already working with repo > elsewhere. > > We make these decisions all the time in Linaro, and we should evaluate > these things here. > > Any other issues that I've missed? Where should we come down in this case?
I say we stay the course and fix the issue of sha's disappearing. I feel this way because its: 1. Technically feasible in the short term. 2. Saves the substantial burden of redirecting to the user. 3. Supports the only way that you can guarantee 100% build fidelity. That said I think we should upstream to repo to help out the general community and based on the results of that see where we go. > Thanks, > > James > _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
