Received: from mx1.tetrasec.net (mx1.tetrasec.net [66.245.176.36])
	by nld3-dev1.alpinelinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1EC0781A9C
	for <~alpine/devel@lists.alpinelinux.org>; Sun,  3 May 2020 02:13:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mx1.tetrasec.net (mail.local [127.0.0.1])
	by mx1.tetrasec.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44E3E88BC6;
	Sun,  3 May 2020 02:13:56 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [172.17.48.222] (068-187-202-164.res.spectrum.com [68.187.202.164])
	(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
	 key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256)
	(No client certificate requested)
	(Authenticated sender: nangel@tetrasec.net)
	by mx1.tetrasec.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C436488BC5;
	Sun,  3 May 2020 02:13:55 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <d14667e4bc74589f09edcfd6c95c0dda9c93f617.camel@alpinelinux.org>
Subject: Re: Enforcing patch headers for patches
From: Nathan Angelacos <nangel@alpinelinux.org>
To: Natanael Copa <ncopa@alpinelinux.org>, Rasmus Thomsen <oss@cogitri.dev>
Cc: ~alpine/devel@lists.alpinelinux.org
Date: Sat, 02 May 2020 22:13:54 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20200430162051.10a7d0ee@ncopa-desktop.copa.dup.pw>
References: <4ac4d3aad3bf0f050070166b27a2344efe32e9b7.camel@cogitri.dev>
	 <20200430102823.11d1ed66@ncopa-desktop.copa.dup.pw>
	 <37d426d6246dbf7702e86eac43fd393407ec6e28.camel@cogitri.dev>
	 <20200430162051.10a7d0ee@ncopa-desktop.copa.dup.pw>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.36.1 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Thu, 2020-04-30 at 16:20 +0200, Natanael Copa wrote:

<valid rant>
<snip>
</valid rant>

I'm done.  Don't care either way.  

kamailio can't compile because qemu requires 1.4 nettle and a new
compile of kamailio requires nettle 1.5

I 100% agree that we should add headers to our patches to say "why does
this exist" 

Upstreaming has been a PITA for me, personally.

I think what Rasmus and Ariadane have been advocating the past few
weeks is "let's reduce friction" - and I 100% agree... but we are
missing something.  

I dunno what... but we are saying "you must do X", and the thing is
"the 'real world (what the heck is that anymore?)' works like Y".

I think the bigger issue is "how do we move forward, document what AND
WHY we need to patch, and ... move forward?"

Rasmus, Ariadane - I really, really appreciate your input.  Personally,
this has been an intelligent conversation.

Sorry.. extra grumpy tonight.