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

Re: divergence from upstream as a bug

On Sunday 18 May 2008, Ben Finney wrote:
> George Danchev <danchev@spnet.net> writes:
> > I strongly believe that [...] there is no any urgent need for more
> > infrastrucre enhancements and yet another places to look at (like
> > teaching BTS/PTS of doing additional DD-upstream communication
> > processing which brings even more complexity to the scene).
> How is the Debian BTS "another place to look at"? It's already an
> essential place to look for information about what changes are made in
> a Debian package.
> > In the world of diversion, there should be a single point of
> > unification one can safely return to.
> The Debian BTS is already on the list of places to go for information
> about Debian package changes. The proposal in this thread doesn't
> increase that.

Eh ;-)... dumping out a phrase out of the context leads to undefined results. 
I that respect you failed to get my point or I failed to emphasize it as 
well. So, if your diff.gz brings multiple logical changes to the upstream 
source in a combined fashion, BTS won't help you make these look better from 
a reviewer point of view, no matter how cool BTS is tag-tracking changes 
being forwarded/rejected/whatever upstream. This is superfluous, but yet not 
useless, since if my system claims that I run upstream 'foo' version 'x.y' I 
know that all the patches before 'x.y' have been merged upstream and the 
additional material is place in debian/patches/ ... logically separated  and 
documented in several diffs if any... you get the idea.

pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB 

Reply to: