Re: RFC: DEP-3: Patch Tagging Guidelines
Carsten Hey wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 10:05:40AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:31:51PM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
>> > 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.
>
> Well, which software, which use case? You don't need a special format to
> display headers in the Debian patch tracking system.
As mentioned in the original proposal, one could make a (tentative) list of
all patches that have not been submitted upstream but are not debian-
specific.
Not mentioned in the original proposal: for QA work, one could produce a
(again, tentative) list of packages which contain (maybe lots of) patches
fixing bugs in debian but are not forwarded/incorporated upstream, which may
be an indicator of dead upstreams.
If someone starts collecting patch history about the packages, one could
make also a list of packages that have non-debian specific patches that have
been applied across several upstream versions, perhaps indicating lack of
manpower/will/spiritual strength to coordinate/endure/work with upstream.
Of course, all this information may or may not be interesting to anybody.
--
Felipe Sateler
Reply to: