Re: RFC: DEP-3: Patch Tagging Guidelines
On 17/06/09 at 09:04 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> 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.
We could have Debian: for the Debian bug, and Bug-(Gnome|KDE|..) for
> > I Think that there's one field missing: DebianSpecific. This field would
> > indicate why the patch is Debian-specific, and should not be forwarded
> > upstream.
> 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.
I think that this information is important enough not to be inside
supplementary lines of an optional tag...
| Lucas Nussbaum
| firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: email@example.com GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |