| |||||||||||||
Commitment to Open (Red Hat News)Commitment to Open (Red Hat News)Posted Mar 4, 2011 22:24 UTC (Fri) by Otus (guest, #67685)Parent article: Commitment to Open (Red Hat News)
I'm not going to take a moral stand on this matter, but I fear this decision isn't necessarily free of side effects. If developers for other distros (Oracle or e.g. Debian) can't look up bug fixes in Red Hat as easily, they'll have less time to actually be productive and fix unfixed bugs. That's work that would also have helped Red Hat and their customers.
If they are going to actively hinder their competitors, getting rid of "upstream first" would be just a difference of degree.
(Log in to post comments)
Commitment to Open (Red Hat News) Posted Mar 4, 2011 23:35 UTC (Fri) by ESRI (guest, #52806) [Link]
I would think there won't be that much lost here. RH's developers will still be very active in upstream projects, participating in mailing lists and doing work publicly via Red Hat's own bugzilla (not to mention Fedora's development is extremely transparent).
I'd question that that was more how it worked before anyways rather then Debian and other developers picking through RH's SRPM files...
Commitment to Open (Red Hat News) Posted Mar 5, 2011 0:05 UTC (Sat) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Well, developers for other distros preferentially look up bugfixes in the upstream tree anyway. This does remove a large source of extra fixes that haven't got upstreamed yet, alas, but a lot of the devs working on that maintain their own git trees anyway, which are often a lot more useful than the RHEL kernel tree because they're not as ancient. (One would hope they haven't been banned from doing *that*.)
The only thing the RHEL tree is useful for is tracking people who want such a degree of stability that they're unwilling to upgrade their kernels for donkey's years. If it's only a matter of a year or two. a long-term-support -stable kernel will suffice. You only really want an RHEL tree if you want the backports and incredibly long lifecycle that RH provide...
Commitment to Open (Red Hat News) Posted Mar 6, 2011 10:44 UTC (Sun) by makomk (guest, #51493) [Link]
Like, for example, the 2.6.32 long-term stable kernel whose maintainers are being inconvenienced by Red Hat's new refusal to publish information about their kernel patches?
Commitment to Open (Red Hat News) Posted Mar 5, 2011 14:35 UTC (Sat) by erwbgy (subscriber, #4104) [Link]
RHEL uses such old kernel versions that I don't think this change will make much of a difference to most distributions other than those that are RHEL-based. For Centos it won't make any difference as they don't change the kernel package and I doubt Scientific Linux do either.
As long as Red Hat continue to work on the upstream kernel along with everyone else I don't see that this changes things for them or anyone else that matters.
|
|||||||||||||