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
Paul did not say that, he simply told that he preferred URLs instead of
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.
Contribuez à Debian et gagnez un cahier de l'admin Debian Lenny :