RFR: GIT Package VCS

Bill Nottingham notting at redhat.com
Wed Jun 6 18:29:41 UTC 2007

Jeremy Katz (katzj at redhat.com) said: 
> Right.  I really don't think we want to just take our current system,
> switch out CVS, and end up with all of the same workflows.  The change
> should be more about how do we improve workflows.  That means thinking
> about things like:
> * How do we make it easier for a maintainer to rebase their package to a
> newer upstream?
> * How do we make it easier for a maintainer to develop, test, and create
> a patch to fix a problem that's being experienced in Fedora?
> * How do we make it easy to send these patches to the upstream of the
> project being worked on?
> * How do we enable downstreams to take our bits, track them and make
> changes as they need/want?
> * How do we better enable a user who has a problem with something we
> ship to be able to fix it themselves and get the fix back to us?
> That's the off the top of my head list to give you sort of the idea of
> things that really want to be thought about.  
> Because if we're just switching out CVS for {git,hg,bzr,svn,foobarbazl}
> and don't think about these things then we're putting all of our
> developers onto a learning curve to switch for what is likely to be
> little gain.

Moreover,there have been requests from developers to explicitly *NOT*
significantly change the development methodology for F8 after the changes
of F7.


More information about the Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list