From: pebenito@ieee.org (Chris PeBenito)
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 16:40:17 -0500
Subject: [refpolicy] policy releases
In-Reply-To: <1716668.X9W763Kd3L@russell.coker.com.au>
References: <1716668.X9W763Kd3L@russell.coker.com.au>
Message-ID: <59007870-6ef9-1d3d-d12e-6921e59a8ebd@ieee.org>
To: refpolicy@oss.tresys.com
List-Id: refpolicy.oss.tresys.com

On 02/07/17 22:09, Russell Coker via refpolicy wrote:
> Could we have a shorter delay between official releases of refpolicy than
> normal for this cycle?

I'm open to something sooner, to a point; perhaps a month.  I'd like to 
make sure everyone, especially distros, have sufficient time to try out 
the usrmerge stuff.


> Including the usrmerge patch in git makes most file context patches against
> the release policy not apply to git which is a significant annoyance when
> submitting patches upstream.

As a former distro maintainer, I sympathize.  However, that kind of 
problem is what you're signing up for when you do distro maintenance. 
At least having two statements in differing order generally has no 
impact for policy, unlike for code patches.


> I would also like to get most of the systemd patches I have merged soon, which
> also adds a significant point of conflict between release and git.

A large systemd change is another reason to provide enough time for 
people to try out the changes.


> I can't speak for all the other people who have significant repositories of
> policy patches.  But one issue that hinders me in sending them upstream is the
> fact that they usually don't apply cleanly to git.  I'd like to see more
> patches going upstream so we don't have such significant differences between
> distributions.  I hope that more frequent upstream releases can help in this
> regard.
>


-- 
Chris PeBenito