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.
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: