-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Jesse Keating wrote:
At the upcoming FUDCon I plan to hold a session or two regarding
requirements and discussions about the future of our package source
control. This is NOT a time to argue about one SCM being "better" than
another. I don't really want to hear any SCM names at all, rather I'm
interested purely in only what we require and what we'd like out of our
package source control. I'm sending this mail to get people thinking
about it, and to give the people who won't be at FUDCon a chance at
dropping their thoughts in.
...
I'll be gathering feedback over the next few days and putting
them into
a not as of yet created wiki page.
Being able to keep classify patches:
- - backports from upstream SCM
- - fixes for upstream, already forwarded (with integration to upstream
bug-filing system if possible, or at least the bug report URL)
- - fixes for upstream, unsent (still being tested or cleaned-up)
- - Fedora-specific fixes, not to be forwarded
Regards,
- --
Michel Salim
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora -
http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkhOYYQACgkQWt0J3fd+7ZBXVACeJNe4kLUXh4NTZ/S/Q2H4QHzQ
qPgAn1A1zt4AZHjz11LsAmJAekm06jX9
=caCJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----