[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       fedora-devel-list
Subject:    Re: High Performance SSH/SCP - HPN-SSH
From:       "Michael Stahnke" <mastahnke () gmail ! com>
Date:       2007-07-12 19:10:19
Message-ID: 7874d9dd0707121210ne9a9430r12bef3b9a507a821 () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On 7/12/07, Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/12/07, Rex Dieter <rdieter@math.unl.edu> wrote:
> > Diverging from upstream is a wee-bit against fedora's objectives/goals, but
> > ultimately, it is the pkg maintainer's call to make.
>
>
> When upstream is working actively with downstream contributors, this
> policy works well.
> If upstream blows off downstream contributors who are trying to play
> ball (and there isn't some sort of weird personality conflict
> nastiness) the policy can feel burdensome because its re-enforcing a
> broken process instead of re-enforcing a healthy innovation process.
>
> I can't judge the problem here, but if this work has been going on in
> parallel for 3+ years, something in the upstream communication is
> broken. The question is, is this a fixable or a forkable situation?
> Does Fedora has as a community have any leverage with upstream openssh
> (via an active fedora contributor who conributes to upstream perhaps?)
> to put this functionality/patch firmly onto the roadmap for upstream
> adoption?

You might want to post to comp.security.ssh, Darren Tucker (one of the
Upstream devs from OpenSSH) often responds quickly and politely.

stahnma


>
> -jef
>
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
>

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]