[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: divergence from upstream as a bug

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:

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

Reply to: