On 17/05/08 at 17:01 -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. That sounds like duplicating information between debian/patches and the BTS, and then writing a tool to ensure that the duplicated information is up-to-date, and hit us when it's not the case. In other words: masochism. I strongly prefer the idea of doing extensive commenting of patches in debian/patches, with a standard format. So we have a single place with all the information. Also, it doesn't sound particularly easy for upstreams to browse the BTS to find the discussion about a specific patch. (This discussion is similar to the one about DEPs vs BTS bugs -- a discussion on the BTS would always miss a "summary".) -- | Lucas Nussbaum | lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: lucas@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature