[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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
other projects.

> > 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
> | "&lt;vendor&gt;-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
| lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net   http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas@nussbaum.fr             GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |

Reply to: