[ale] Strategies for OS code in the Enterprise

[Steven A. DuChene]

Yes, I would agree. Why should you have to maintain your fixes locally.
Why not get them merged back into the main OS tree?

On Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 03:28:20PM -0500, Chris Fowler wrote:
> Hand merging works best.  But if you fixed the bugs, why did you not
> post a patch to be placed into the main tree?
> 
> 
> On Mon, 2003-12-22 at 15:19, John Wells wrote:
> > Guys,
> > 
> > In my relatively new management role, I'm doing my best at every turn to
> > leverage the power of open source software.
> > 
> > I have, however, a problem I've never really faced before.  We're
> > implementing a issue tracking package (www.issue-tracker.com) and have
> > installed the latest "stable" release.  While testing it, we've run across
> > a number of bugs.  We've also installed the latest development version
> > from CVS which fixes a lot of the bugs, but introduces a lot more.
> > 
> > So, what I'm left with is a "fork" of issue-tracker...our locally
> > maintained and personally fixed version, and the official tree at
> > issue-tracker.com.  For the sake of upgrades and to keep the ability of
> > taking advantage of enhancements, I need to come up with a strategy of
> > "syncing" the trees upon the next major release.
> > 
> > While I'm guessing this will simply involve me downloading the release and
> > updating our local cvs repos with the latest code (handling any merges by
> > hand), the idea isn't necessarily pleasant.  I'm still thinking through
> > the issue, but would like to hear other input from you guys...ever faced a
> > similar situation?  Did you come up with an ingeniuous solution?  Is there
> > a feature of CVS I'm missing that makes this easy?
> > 
> > Thanks for the input!
> > 
> > John

-- 
Steven A. DuChene     linux-clusters at mindspring.com
                      sduchene at mindspring.com