Re: divergence from upstream as a bug
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 05:01:08PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> What if we just decide that changes made to upstream sources[1] qualify
> as a bug? A change might be a bug in upstream, or in the debianisation,
> or in Debian for requiring the change. But just call it a bug.
> Everything else follows from that quite naturally..
>
> The bug can be tracked, with a patch, in our BTS. The bug can be
> forwarded upstream as the patch is sent upstream. A tag "divergence" can
> be used to query for all such bugs, or to sort such bugs out of the way.
>
> Other tags and BTS data can be used if desired. For example, "divergence
> fixed-upstream", "divergence wontfix", "divergence help". Versioning
> information can be used to track when an upstream version resolves the
> divergence. Discussion and updated patches can be CCed to the bug log.
>
> The BTS could be enhanced to allow opening a bug and forwarding it
> upstream in a single message. (IIRC currently, it takes two). This would
> allow a very simple workflow where a DD makes a change to a package,
> generates a patch, and sends it upstream while also recording the
> divergence in the BTS.
(...)
The BTS would also need something to make it easier to spot patches in a
bug. Patch tracking is one of the few things bugzilla is not bad at, for
instance.
Mike
Reply to: