On 04/21/12 02:23, Doug Barton wrote:
...
In libedit we have incomplete merges from upstream (that was
CVS fault), we have some changes that are obsolete wrt to how
upstream solved the same issues and we have a couple of
files that have diverged completely from upstream.
I agree that sounds like an ugly mess ... who is working on cleaning it
up? Is this something that we need to create a team to address? It
certainly sounds like something too large for one person to handle on
their own.
I have a patch (pending approval) to improve things here:
http://people.freebsd.org/~pfg/patches/patch-libedit-cvs20091228
and I will try to reduce some other differences with upstream code
but I think at some point we will just have to do a brute merge from
the code upstream.
Either way it all can all be solved but it's just a lot of work and I
can see how the direct approach helps understand better what
is happening and can ultimately save time.
I'm glad we have an area of agreement. It sounds to me like the lesson
from libedit is to do it right from the very beginning, so that things
like libedit don't happen again.
The libedit case shows a case where the vendor branch approach
failed. To be quite honest, it all depends on the maintainer and not
really on the mechanics: if no one cares to keep up with the small
changes during a while, eventually someone has to take care of a
bigger set of changes in the future.
In jemalloc's case I am really glad to see the code updated and
maintained now.
Pedro.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
