Re: divergence from upstream as a bug
On Mon, 19 May 2008, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> How I'm reading the latter paragraph is that patch messages are
> *alternative* as some non-patch summary message, am I wrong? I think
> the two should be orthogonal: you can have or not a summary message,
> you can have or not a patch.
The idea was that a patch, since it would actually contain the
resolution of the original problem, would be the correct place to
summarize the problem. However, on thinking about it more, I think
that having a single summary, with a set of patches and possibly
attachments located near the summary is the way to go. I haven't
completely decided how this should be implemented, though.
> But still this does not solve another problem we have with patch
> management in the BTS: they are sometimes inlined, while sometimes
> the are attached. Can't we fix attachment as the required format for
> patches? (e.g. forcing an attachment if one wants to add +patch or
> something similar). This + the forthcoming ability above to identify
> *the* latest patch will give us the ability to automatically extract
> patches from bug reports.
This is an unecessary restriction, as not all patches need necessarily
be diff files. Making it easy to extract extractable patches should be
good enough; those that can't will just have to refer to a message.
Don Armstrong
--
<Clint> why the hell does kernel-source-2.6.3 depend on xfree86-common?
<infinity> It... Doesn't?
<Clint> good point
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Reply to: