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

Re: Which problem are we trying to solve? (Was: divergence from upstream as a bug)

On Sun, 2008-05-18 at 21:40 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> (you can skip to the end for a summary of what I think we agree on)
> > >  The only
> > > thing that he would additionaly get is a notification when the change is
> > > applied upstream and fixed in Debian by a new upstream version.
> > 
> > Don echoed that sentiment by offering just to not archive bugs tagged
> > with 'divergence'. I would agree that the submitter doesn't really need
> > to know when Fixed: is replaced by Closes: - it is a maintainer issue
> > but one that does need to be publicly visible.
> OK, but then you have to remove the divergence tag when the change is
> integrated upstream -- not just close the bug. This would be still be a
> manual process, right?

I suppose bts-link could be utilised - after all, the bug tagged
'divergence' should also be forwarded so it can be updated from there.
However, it might be just as well that it is manual. As I mentioned
before, removing a tag can be done by anyone so it's not a big issue.

> Users can choose whichever bug tracker they prefer, but DDs should
> always report patches that should be reported upstream to the upstream
> BTS. It would be nonsense if DDs started reporting patches for upstream
> only to the Debian BTS.


> OK, I think that we generally agree. Let's summarize again to make sure:
> 1) Encourage maintainers to use patches in debian/patches. Define some
> useful pseudo-headers.


> 2) Build patches.debian.org, fully automated export of Debian patches.


> 3) For patches that need to be sent upstream, a pseudo header in the
> patch indicates where the submission of the patch to upstream is
> discussed.
> -> If upstream has a BTS, the discussion happens on upstream's
>    BTS, and the pseudo header in the patch points there.
> -> If upstream doesn't have a BTS, a bug is created/reused on the Debian
>    BTS, and the discussion with upstream is Cced with this bug. The
>    pseudo header in the patch points to that Debian BTS bug.
>    Additionally, this bug is tagged +divergence to indicate what it's
>    about.
>    Also, bugs tagged divergence are not archived. So even after the bug
>    has been closed in Debian, the bug can continue to be used to discuss
>    the patch with upstream.
> Sounds good?

Yes, it does.

It could also be possible to add some automation because as the
pseudo-header is in the patch, scripts could check that the list of
pseudo-headers with a bugs.d.o URL matches the list of diversion bugs
obtained via SOAP. Lintian doesn't currently do SOAP queries of the BTS
but a QA script should be relatively easy to create. Maybe bts-link
could be drafted in to provide some leverage over pseudo-headers mapping
to an upstream bug tracker.

Lintian could check that the pseudo-header exists.

Neil Williams <codehelp@debian.org>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: