Re: changing NetBSD's view of npf's canonical location

Christoph Badura <[email protected]> writes:

> On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 08:47:43AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
>> I think that NetBSD should document an unmaintained repo as upstream,
>> because it suggests that every change to our tree should be filed as a
>> PR upstream.  That doesn't seem like a good use of time, adding friction
>> without benefit.  Looking at upstream, I see very little origining
>> outside of NetBSD since about 2020.
>
> I guess you meant "I think that NetBSD should *not* document an unmaintained
> repo as upstream."

Sorry, and yes that's what I meant.

> I guess you proposal makes some sense.  Personally, I don't care much
> either way.
>
> I think we should sync our sources from the upstream version to pick up
> the changes that aren't in-tree and continue from there.

Agreed.  There are a few things in the github repo not in the NetBSD
tree and it makes sense to bring them in.

> With the git export, pulling out changes and submitting them upstream is
> not difficult.

True, and I didn't mean to say that anyone should be discouraged from
doing that, especially if they get merged upstream.  Only that having a
documented expectation seems too much, given that issues/PRs don't seem
to get addressed.  (But look at the repo yourself and feel free to say
that you see it differently.)

It would be good for us to do things in a way which does not
unnecessarily hinder future merges in either direction.