Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost> writes:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 10:55:20AM +0000, Christos Zoulas wrote:
>> Every project I know off makes changes locally first and then pushes
>> them upstream. It is not practical to wait for upstream to be fixed
>> first, specially in cases of security fixes. In some cases we
>> maintain many thousands of lines of diff just because upstream will
>> not take them, and the version control systems do a pretty decent
>> job merging new vendor branches.
>
> This is just ignorant of the fact that a number of NetBSD developer
> maintain projects where they also have upstream commit access. As such
> you are doing nothing but increasing the maintainance cost. Stop making
> it harder. Silly GCC warnings fall into this category.
Joerg,
Christos has been the upstream maintainer of more than one piece of code
we've brought in tree, and has been sending patches back upstream long
enough that it's fair to say he's one of the originators of TNF's
policies in this regard.
As long as I remember, we've had a strict policy of submitting changes
upstream where possible, but of _not_ gating fixes on this process --
particularly fixes which are security or correctness related (the latter
includes fixes without which we'd have to break our policy that all code
should compile with -Wall -Werror).
With this in mind, you can assert what you think TNF's policy should
change _to_, but it's simply incorrect to suggest that what you ask for
_is_ the current policy (much less to accuse one of the originators of
the current policy of being `ignorant' of what that policy is).
Just sayin'...
--
Jim Wise
jwise%draga.com@localhost
Attachment:
pgpsbJshlmuOv.pgp
Description: PGP signature