Re: RFC: DEP-3: Patch Tagging Guidelines
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 11782 March 1977, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>
>> This is a proposal to formalize a set of meta-information
>> to be embedded in patches applied to Debian packages. Most
>> patch systems allow for a free-from description preceeding
>> the content of the patch and the plan is to make use of that
>> space to embed some structured content.
>
> It does sound a *little* overengineered for no good reason. (IMO).
I usually tend to like and support some changes even if they are a "big"
change, but in this case I agree with you Joerg.
I mean, often the patch name already says enough about it, at times patches
are just trivial (a typo fix doesn't need four or five lines to be
described), at times they are forwarded as soon as the new package is
uploaded, at times they are $VCS commits from upstream. And mandating or
even recommending to add all that documentation is useless in those, and
probably more, cases.
The only part I consider worth to keep is the one where the status regarding
forwarding the patch to upstream is recorded.
Something as simple as:
Status: forwarded to foo@bar.com
Status: forwarded to http://some.bts.foo.com/bar?id=moo
Status: not forwarded
Status: not forwarded, Debian-specific
It's perfectly human and machine readable, and is pretty simple.
Cheers,
Raphael Geissert
Reply to: