On 11/04/2014 12:00 PM, Stan Cruise wrote: > > On 11/04/2014 05:00 AM, centos-request at centos.org wrote: > > Today's Topics: > > 34. Re: What List to Use for Patch Requests (Johnny Hughes) > > ------------------------------ Message: 34 Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 > 05:58:07 -0600 From: Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> To: > centos at centos.org Subject: Re: [CentOS] What List to Use for Patch > Requests Message-ID: <5458BF4F.6020300 at centos.org> Content-Type: > text/plain; charset="windows-1252" On 11/03/2014 06:38 PM, Stan Cruise > wrote: > >> I posted an issue that may warrant a patch some days ago with no >> response. >> Is there a more appropriate list to post on? > > CentOS is a rebuild of RHEL Source code ... we don't release bugfixes of > things released by RHEL unless we (CentOS team) somehow introduced the > broken code with branding updates. Remember, CentOS is supposed to be > bug for bug compatible with the upstream products and if we want things > fixed they need to come down from upstream. > > Also, the evolution in CentOS-7 is 3.8.5-22.el7_0.1 ... not evolution > 3.10.x. That means that the patch from Fedora 20 will likely not apply > as is. > > If you are sure that it is the same issue then we can open a Red Hat bug > and hopefully they will roll in the patch. > > Thanks, > Johnny Hughes > > > Stan Cruise reply: > > Hi Johnny, > > Many thanks for your reply, and thanks for your description of the > streaming approach. I was conceptually aware of this, but I do not know > the process to follow. > > My own use tests produce exactly the errors described in the bug report, > although without real debugging it is hard to say it is the exact same > root cause. > > Would I need to submit a specific issue report with log files to > initiate a Centos/RH process? (I have not done this before, but I do > have a software development background, and know that one has to put in > the effort, so I am willing to learn this and hopefully help the > community). As I posted in another post on that thread, Red Hat already has that for action in this bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1153723 Should be released soon (7.1 at the latest, maybe sooner if it comes out of QA) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20141104/de49f7f4/attachment-0004.sig>