RFC round 3: DEP-3: Patch Tagging Guidelines
Hello,
it looks like we quickly converged on something relatively well accepted.
Current version: http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep3/
=== Changes since last round ===
I made some minor changes following feedback: it gives the expected value
for the origin field for two common cases:
--- a/web/deps/dep3.mdwn
+++ b/web/deps/dep3.mdwn
@@ -99,6 +99,11 @@ of any other distribution that tracks the same problem/patch.
the URL where the patch got grabbed (mailing list archives,
distribution bugtrackers, etc.) when possible.
+ In general, a user-created patch grabbed in a BTS should be tagged
+ as "other". When copying a patch from another vendor, the
+ meta-information (and hence this field) should be kept if present, or
+ created if necessary with a "vendor" origin.
+
* `Bug-<Vendor>` or `Bug` (optional)
It contains one URL pointing to the related bug (possibly fixed by the
I also recommend that parsers accept non-structured content:
--- a/web/deps/dep3.mdwn
+++ b/web/deps/dep3.mdwn
@@ -63,6 +63,10 @@ The set of fields ends on the first empty line. Free-form comments
follow and be used for any other information that does not fit in the
structured content.
+Any parser that expect those fields in patch headers should also
+accept non-structured content and simply consider the whole content
+to be the value of the `Description` field.
+
Standard fields
---------------
=== Ubuntu's feedback ===
I mentionned the proposal on the ubuntu-devel list[1] to have their opinions
concerning incompatibility between their guidelines and this new standard.
It looks like they have no problem with that.
Quoting Martin Pitt[2]:
> We currently don't have any tools which parse those, it's just for human
> consumption right now. Thus it's not a problem to adapt patches over
> time once the format has been agreed upon.
Colin Watson said something similar[3].
=== Remaining concerns/ideas ===
Some ideas/concerns have been voiced but did not seem to have much support.
I'm not going to change the DEP unless more people express support for the
particular suggestion.
Josselin Mouette wanted to allow bug numbers instead of URLs in the Bug-*/Bug
fields. Several people expressed their preference for a simple URL field.
Sub-thread: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/06/msg00543.html
Lucas Nussbaum suggested to replace "Bug-<Vendor>" with "<Vendor>" while
Sean Finney suggested that the latter could be an alias for the former. I
explained that I initially selected "Bug-<Vendor>" because it enables simple
parsing without encoding a list of known vendors and/or fields. Ubuntu is using
"<Vendor>" currently but they have stated that breaking that compatibility
should not be a concern.
Sub-thread: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/06/msg00461.html
Guido Günther suggested to reuse field names used by git-format-patch and/or
allow them together with existing fields.
Message: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/06/msg00551.html
=== Next step? ===
After this round, if we don't have any important changes, I'll probably
announce the format to debian-devel-announce. Should I use this opportunity to
ask for more review or simply suggest people to start using the format?
Cheers,
[1] https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2009-June/028355.html
[2] https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2009-June/028357.html
[3] https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2009-June/028358.html
--
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: