On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 08:25:46PM -0700, Matt McCutchen wrote:
I am aware of that. But FESCo has the authority to override the
maintainer, and in their recent discussion of the SELinux patch, they
decided not to move forward on the basis of the trademarks:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
We have the authority to do that, and the decision you're referring to
effectively *did* override the maintainer by saying that the selinux
policy change should be reverted. If a package is generally
well-maintained and then broken by a change introduced by another
On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 23:29 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
On 08/12/2010 10:59 PM, Matt McCutchen wrote:
That's why I'm so frustrated that Fedora seems to be committed
to keeping the Mozilla trademarks, which moot any discussion of whether
to deviate for those packages. But this is only my
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/12/2010 10:59 PM, Matt McCutchen wrote:
That's why I'm so frustrated that Fedora seems to be committed
to keeping the Mozilla trademarks, which moot any discussion of whether
to deviate for those packages. But this is only my opinion.
Jesse Keating wrote:
You're making an assumption here that it's the trademarks that prevent
any deviation from upstream, when in fact the maintainer has stated many
times that regardless of trademarks, he would not deviate from upstream
given the sensitivity of a software suite that has to
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 8:21 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
. Their position is not consistent: if we ask for non-
upstream changes, they say the trademarks forbid them so they can't do
anything, if we ask for getting the trademarks removed, they say that it
wouldn't change anything anyway.
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 16:51 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
* This policy of sticking religiously to upstream means we are not shipping
KDE integration for Firefox, despite patches from openSUSE existing. This
makes Firefox suck under KDE. Our Firefox maintainers refuse to do anything
about it.
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
You seem to refuse to accept that Firefox maintainers in Fedora don't want
the KDE patches without it getting upstream. Firefox is one of the
frequently updated software and non-upstream patches create a burden. Why
aren't the patches upstream? You are fighting in the
On 08/13/2010 08:49 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
But applying KDE integration patches should be a KDE SIG matter, the
individual package maintainers should have to comply with KDE SIG decisions
on the matter.
No. No SIG's have any authority whatsoever over individual package
maintainers outside
Chris Tyler wrote:
If you (or whoever is interested) can't get those patches through the
upstream review process for technical reasons, then perhaps they're ugly
patches. If you can't get them through because of lack of
time/energy/motivation, then the future maintenance of those patches is
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 05:49:31PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
You forget the sociopolitical aspect: in many upstreams (and AFAICS Mozilla
is one of those), you can only get your poorly-written code merged if you
know the right
people. :-(
FTFY
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 17:49 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Chris Tyler wrote:
If you (or whoever is interested) can't get those patches through the
upstream review process for technical reasons, then perhaps they're ugly
patches. If you can't get them through because of lack of
Chris Tyler wrote:
Thanks for reinforcing my point -- you have to work with the community.
Yes, you'll make some relationships along the way.
Except it works the other way round: you only have a chance to get into the
community (well, SOME upstream communities; thankfully, they're not all like
On 08/13/2010 09:44 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Chris Tyler wrote:
Thanks for reinforcing my point -- you have to work with the community.
Yes, you'll make some relationships along the way.
Except it works the other way round: you only have a chance to get into the
community (well, SOME
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
No. No SIG's have any authority whatsoever over individual package
maintainers outside the packages the team maintains. No one needs to
comply with your requirements.
That's exactly Fedora's organizational problem.
KDE SIG should have authority over anything
Kevin Kofler wrote:
* This policy of sticking religiously to upstream means we are not shipping
KDE integration for Firefox, despite patches from openSUSE existing. This
makes Firefox suck under KDE. Our Firefox maintainers refuse to do anything
about it.
What reason does upstream give for
On 08/13/2010 10:47 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
No. No SIG's have any authority whatsoever over individual package
maintainers outside the packages the team maintains. No one needs to
comply with your requirements.
That's exactly Fedora's organizational problem.
KDE
On 08/13/2010 09:17 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
No. No SIG's have any authority whatsoever over individual package
maintainers outside the packages the team maintains. No one needs to
comply with your requirements.
That's exactly Fedora's organizational problem.
KDE SIG
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 05:47:37PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Good luck getting Mozilla to accept anything. Just like the kernel, they're
a very hard to work with upstream. If you don't know the right people, your
stuff just doesn't get in. :-(
Which is odd, because the number of
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
You are calling a lot of things including the kernel and Firefox KDE
related even though KDE Spin does not even include Firefox by default.
In other words, you want a organization policy that lets you dictate to
other maintainers what patches they should merge even if the
Dave Jones wrote:
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 05:47:37PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Good luck getting Mozilla to accept anything. Just like the kernel,
they're a very hard to work with upstream. If you don't know the right
people, your stuff just doesn't get in. :-(
Which is odd,
On 08/13/2010 10:33 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Uh, AFAIK Jaroslav Řezník has talked to both the OO.o and the Firefox
maintainers about KDE integration (there are maintainers or comaintainers of
both in the same RH office), in both cases with little success so far. In
OO.o's case, some or all
Jon Ciesla wrote:
My understanding of the SIG concept was that they were groups of people
who were self-organizing around a particular theme to further that theme
in Fedora, i.e. Games, Live Upgrade, KDE, etc.
Right, but that makes them naturally the best bodies to make decisions
related to
On Friday, August 13, 2010, 1:05:16 PM, Kevin wrote:
Jon Ciesla wrote:
My understanding of the SIG concept was that they were groups of people
who were self-organizing around a particular theme to further that theme
in Fedora, i.e. Games, Live Upgrade, KDE, etc.
Right, but that makes them
On 08/13/2010 12:05 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jon Ciesla wrote:
My understanding of the SIG concept was that they were groups of people
who were self-organizing around a particular theme to further that theme
in Fedora, i.e. Games, Live Upgrade, KDE, etc.
Right, but that makes them naturally
On 08/13/2010 12:23 PM, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
On Friday, August 13, 2010, 1:05:16 PM, Kevin wrote:
Jon Ciesla wrote:
My understanding of the SIG concept was that they were groups of people
who were self-organizing around a particular theme to further that theme
in Fedora, i.e. Games, Live
On Friday, August 13, 2010, 1:26:34 PM, Jon wrote:
Hey, no fair stating the same point as I did, at the same time, but
better, and without ranting. That's cheating!
:)
-J
Sorry... Must be feeling mellow - it's Friday afternoon, and I'm
taking next week off.
I'll make sure I flick
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
The current approach of trying to force maintainers to accept patches
simply does not work.
The only reason it doesn't work is that our organizational structure is not
built to make this work.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at said:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
The current approach of trying to force maintainers to accept patches
simply does not work.
The only reason it doesn't work is that our organizational structure is not
built to make this work.
But why
On 08/13/2010 12:58 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
The current approach of trying to force maintainers to accept patches
simply does not work.
The only reason it doesn't work is that our organizational structure is not
built to make this work.
Kevin Kofler
I've
Al Dunsmuir wrote:
The FireFox maintainer might well be viewed as best qualified to
determine which (if any) distribution-specific patches they want to
support over the life of the package. If you say no, then put that
maintainer in a FireFox SIG and repeat the question.
1. It
Le Ven 13 août 2010 19:24, Jon Ciesla a écrit :
The person may point to their SIGs enhanced guidelines, but unless they
get FPC to add them to the general guidelines, then they're optional.
Which is a lot of work, and not something everyone will apply even after FPC
blessing, but it's the
On 08/13/2010 01:10 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Al Dunsmuir wrote:
The FireFox maintainer might well be viewed as best qualified to
determine which (if any) distribution-specific patches they want to
support over the life of the package. If you say no, then put that
maintainer in a
sticking close to upstream as
opposed to throwing in code willy nilly because it looks cool. Upstream
has a code review process for a reason.
IMO, staying close to upstream is simply a means to the end of shipping
better software, and Fedora should be prepared to deviate from upstream
when
34 matches
Mail list logo
