[Olsr-dev] 0.6.4 release and "howto do it"

[Ferry Huberts]

On 19-07-12 21:36, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>
>
> On 07/19/2012 03:33 PM, Henning Rogge wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 9:26 PM, Ferry Huberts <(spam-protected)> wrote:
>>> Well, that depends entirely on the situation. What you propose is not so
>>> common. A few examples:
>>> - Assume that normal development will continue on master.
>>> - A bug is fixed on master. For this bug it is clear that it also exists on
>>> one or more release branches: we backport the fix to those branches that we
>>> deem necessary.
>>> - A bug is fixed on a release branch. For this bug it is clear that it also
>>> exists on master: we forward-port to master.
>>>
>>> And now the tricky parts:
>>>   - A bug is fixed on master. For this bug it is NOT clear that it also
>>> exists on one or more release branches. Now what do we do? I for one will
>>> not waste time trying to reproduce it in any release branch. I propose to
>>> backport it only when a specific bug report on it comes in.
>>> - A bug is fixed on a release branch. For this bug it is NOT clear that it
>>> also exists on master: now what do we do? This is perhaps the most difficult
>>> situation.
>>>
>>> I think we'll need to communicate better for this to work properly ;-)
>>
>> Okay, thats a good argument.
>>
>> Maybe fixing stuff on the stable branch(es) and merging it back to
>> master from time to time is really easier.
>>
>>
>>> I took a look at the debian repo and am not really pleased with the patches
>>> in there. We had a big discussion with the OpenWRT guys on that they need to
>>> upstream their patches and they did: they now basically have zero patches
>>> against upstream olsrd.
>>> Debian seems to care much less about that. I'd urge the debian guys to work
>>> upstream.
>>
>> I would say at least half of them could easily go upstream... and
>> maybe we should talk about the rest.
>>
>> Henning
>>
>
> The patches are there for the taking.  If someone here thinks they
> should be included in olsrd.git, they should commit them.
>

Ok, let me do a short summary of the discussions we had with some other 
guys that had some patches:

- Us  : WTF do you have that patch for?
   Them: <some reason>
   Us  : that BS, <some explanation>
   Them: ok we'll drop it.
- Us  : WTF do you have that patch for?
   Them: <some reason>
   Us  : that is an excellent reason, we'll upstream it!


In short, we'd like to know the reasons for the patches!


-- 
Ferry Huberts