Re: RFC: DEP-3: Patch Tagging Guidelines
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > * `Bug-<Vendor>` or `Bug` (optional)
> > It contains one or more URLs (space separated) pointing to the related bugs
> > (possibly fixed by the patch). The `Bug` field is reserved
> > for the bug URL(s) in the upstream bug tracker.
> What about using Debian: (like Ubuntu's Patch Tagging Guidelines) to
> indicate which Debian bug is fixed by this patch?
The reason I wanted a common prefix is that we don't have an authoritative
list of vendors and as such it would be best if the content of the field
could be validated based on the common prefix.
> > * `Status` (optional)
> Why optional?
Because there are cases where its value is implicit. If we have "Origin:
upstream" (or backport) then it's not needed. That said, it looks like
several people would like to not have both field in the current form. I'll
try to come up with a proposal to merge both in some meaningful way. If
you have an idea, feel free to propose it.
> > * `Signed-off-by` (optional)
> I don't think that this field is necessary. If people want to credit
> other people in their patches, they can do so in the Description:.
It's not (only) about credit here, it's about knowing if the patch has been
reviewed and by whom.
> I Think that there's one field missing: DebianSpecific. This field would
> indicate why the patch is Debian-specific, and should not be forwarded
Re-read the description of "Status", it already contains this:
| The first line should consist of a single keyword among
| "<vendor>-specific" (the patch must not be forwarded as it is
| specific to a vendor, ex: branding patches), [...]
| Supplementary lines can be used to explain in more details the status of
| the patch. It should be used for example to explain why the patch has
| been rejected, or why this change is only meaningful for the vendor.
Contribuez à Debian et gagnez un cahier de l'admin Debian Lenny :