On 8/14/12 8:49 AM, "Steve Grubb" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 04:29:39 AM Spencer R. Shimko wrote: >> Our patches, if necessary, will always be additive. We will always >>engage >> the relevant community first. Hence this RFC. *We are not forking*. >> Quite to the contrary, we learned from Red Hat. Red Hat carries >>countless >> patches to upstream repositories. They include those patches in source >> RPMs. You don't consider those packages containing patches forks do you >> Shawn? > >We have an upstream first policy. We find problems, talk with upstream >about the >problem, submit patches that are acceptable by upstream, only then do we >patch >an old release that we want some stability in. We re-base to a current >release >that allows us to drop patches when convenient. I'm not sure why you are raising this point. I clearly stated that we will communicate with upstream first very clearly: "We will always engage the relevant community first." Thanks though, --Spencer > >-Steve _______________________________________________ scap-security-guide mailing list [email protected] https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/scap-security-guide
