Proposed Changes to Patches Repository

Jim Gifford lfs at
Thu Dec 9 19:21:16 PST 2004

Tushar Teredesai wrote:

> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Jim Gifford wrote:
>>> I have plans for the patches project that will effect everyone. I 
>>> would like your feedback on the proposed changes to the patches 
>>> repository.
> Sorry for replying to the wrong message, the original post never made 
> it to the news server.
>>> 1 - SVN Structure
>>>    Implement a structure that is easier to navigate and secure for 
>>> all developers
>>>    control of their own patches.
>>>              Visual of proposed structure
>>>                   trunk --> lfs {LFS Related Patches} Responsible 
>>> Party LFS Editors
>>>                   blfs {BLFS Related Patches} Responsible Party BLFS 
>>> Editors
>>>                   hlfs {HLFS Related Patches} Responsible Party HLFS 
>>> Editors
>>>                   hints {Hints Related Patches} Responsible Party 
>>> Patch and Hints Maintainers
>>>                   other {Patches not in above categories} 
>>> Responsible Party Patch Maintainers
>>>       Under this SVN Change, the xLFS maintainers, would control 
>>> their patches, and
>>>       would be responsible for making sure they meat the patches 
>>> projects guidelines
>>>       which would be set by Patch Maintainers, Matt, Bruce, and Robert.
>>>       This would also mean the elimination of private patches 
>>> archives, since you would
>>>        have full control over the patches for your own books. As the 
>>> patches maintainer
>>>        I would enforce header policies only over the LFS, BLFS, and 
>>> HLFS patches, everything
>>>        else would be under the xLFS leaders control.
>>>        Hints and other patches, would fall under my control.
> Rather than having a seperate repository for each project how about 
> allowing all the project guys to submit patches directly to the main 
> repository? Editors should only add (never delete) patches to the 
> repository that are relevant to their project. The patch maintainers 
> would be responsible for all other patches and for cleaning up old 
> junk. That way there is only one patch in the entire lfs repository 
> instead of having one for each project.
> In addition, svn's symlink capability could be used to keep a list of 
> all the patches for a particular book.
> --Tushar.

That's a really good suggestion, I will have to test to make sure it 
works. Thanx Tush!!

jim at
lfs at

LFS User # 2577
Registered Linux User # 299986

FWD: 275410
IPKall: 360-968-1517

More information about the blfs-dev mailing list