On Saturday 24 May 2008, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Fri, 23 May 2008, Luciano Bello wrote: --cut-- > > Of course at first is not easy. But we should go to an scenario > > where all the local patches was reported to upstream (to apply them > > in the next release) or be justified by more than one developer. > > > > I'm just saying the platitude. We need to improve our process. We > > must learn something from the Debian/OpenSSL debacle. > > We've learned lessons that we already knew: reviewing patches and > working to minimize diffs between upstream is good. However, blocking > Debian development on upstream or reviewers isn't the way to magically > get more people to review Debian-specific patches.
If Debian prefers quality to quantity, blocking Debian development to upstream or reviewers is a good thing. There is no magic way to get more people to review Debian-specific patches, but having these extracted and published in a centralized system would improve accessibility and readability to the rest of the world. > We need the people who are doing the review and have continuously > committed to doing the review before we block on the review. OK, but Debian should help them first revealing its patch material in a more accessible and readable fashion. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu> fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]