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

Re: RFC: DEP-3: Patch Tagging Guidelines

On Sun, 21 Jun 2009, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> > Description (required)
> Why not simply consider all the free-form text the description? that would
> make all the current patches with a comment insta DEP3-compliant.

Done, but that's a recommendatino for the parser. Note that it's not
DEP3-compliant since the Origin field is required.

> > Origin (required)
> Making this field mandatory doesn't sound like a good idea to me, as it
> already clashes a bit with the forwarded and author fields. If the Origin
> is upstream, then it doesn't need to be forwarded; and it doesn't cope very
> well with the idea of patches by some John Doe user.

I believe it's important to be able to know where the patch came from.

I don't agree that it clashes with other optional fields, when it clashes
the optional field can precisely be avoided...

> > Bug-<Vendor> or Bug (optional)
> Like Paul Wise already said: it would be better to have a single field where
> the urls to the bug trackers can be specified. It doesn't only make it
> easier to find the final url, but it also requires zero extra
> maintenance/updates on the parsing tools just to know about another bug
> tracker.

Paul did not say that, he simply told that he preferred URLs instead of
bug numbers.

Are you saying that you don't want Bug-<Vendor> but only Bug without
any requirement to indicate the vendor ?

I think it would be bad because it would not allow to differentiate the
upstream bug url from the others.

Raphaël Hertzog

Contribuez à Debian et gagnez un cahier de l'admin Debian Lenny :

Reply to: