Re: RFC: DEP-3: Patch Tagging Guidelines
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:31:51PM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 10:15:16PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:10:14PM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
> > > I currently don't see a relevant benefit in this above just using the
> > > changelog entry, which you need to write anyway. Additional information
> > Putting the information in the changelog makes it much harder to find
> Yes, putting the information _only_ in the changelog make it much harder
> to find, but that is not what I did nor what I proposed. As you can
> see, my patch header is a copy of the changelog entry, so you don't even
> need to open the changelog file to get all relevant information.
You might've wanted to make that more explicit in the message - saying
"just use[ing] the changelog entry" gives a different impression.
> If an integration of the information in the patch headers into UDD would
> be planned which could be used to query patches not applied upstream or
> similar, I would at least see a benefit in using a standard header
> format.
That's the idea - make the data available for software.
I'd also expect to see the standard headers encourage the recording of
information that gets a standard header, it's certainly helped that in
Linux.
Reply to: