On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 12:50 PM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner
<stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc> wrote:
> Dave Page wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner
>> <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc> wrote:
>>>
>>> well yeah but that might sum up to a dozends of people that will have to
>>> wit
>>> for an updated spec file vs. we having to hack up fusionforge code and
>>> have
>>> it maintained over years...
>>
>> The major issue with hacking up gforge in the past was that noone
>> bothered to document what was changed, not that it was hacked in the
>> first place.
>
> while I agree that this should have been done in a dedicated repo/branch in
> an SCM at least the changes done in the last few years (a handful of
> security fixes) have been at least discussed on the gforge-admins list.
> And as I said before our changes have been minor so that is not really our
> issue.
As far as I've seen, they've been the main holdup in upgrading gforge,
as noone willing the work on the upgrade had any idea what the changes
were. If it weren't for that, we probably could have just installed an
new version and upgraded as other gforge users do.
--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
