Re: Using a patch naming convention
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 11:05:18PM -0600, Rene Mayorga wrote:
>Working on some other teams I notice a nice and interesting naming
>convention to patch names
>The idea is to stand a status of the patch using a name convention, with
>status I mean:
> 1) Patch is Debian specific and there is no need to send it to upstream
> 2) Patch needs to be send to upstream
> 3) Patch is already sent, and needs to be removed on the next release if is
I use the following, slightly different, rule:
0xxx: Grabbed from upstream development.
1xxx: Possibly relevant for upstream adoption.
2xxx: Only relevant for official Debian release.
With that logic, there's a greater chance that when low-ordered patches
are later dropped due to being includd upstream, the later patches might
not need unfuzzing.
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----