Re: RFC: DEP-3: Patch Tagging Guidelines
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > It should be possible. I see one problem here though. Bug-Gnome is really
> > "Bug" because it's the upstream bug. While we can have an URL mapping for
> > each vendor, it's not possible for the non-qualified entry used for the
> > upstream case.
>
> I don’t think one of these entries should be qualified as “the”
> canonical upstream bug.
>
> When I forward a bug to epiphany, if I add a Bug: pointing to GNOME,
> later it can be forwarded by them to Mozilla/Webkit because the patch
> turns out to be a workaround for a bug in the engine. That would make
> suddenly the Bug field turn into a Bug-GNOME, and a new Bug field would
> be introduced, pointing to Mozilla/Webkit?
No, the patch is against epiphany even if it's a work-around
for a mozilla/webkit bug (so it's always "Bug"). You could add a
Bug-Mozilla: if you wanted but I don't see that as a necessity. The
(epiphany|upstream) bug entry will already contain that information in
most cases.
> I think it’s bad design to rely on too much expectations based on a
> particular case. The only thing that’s generic is that patches are
> related to bugs that can lie in various trackers.
And a patch applies to a particular software. That software is what we
consider as "upstream" compared to us.
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog
Contribuez à Debian et gagnez un cahier de l'admin Debian Lenny :
http://www.ouaza.com/wp/2009/03/02/contribuer-a-debian-gagner-un-livre/
Reply to: