Re: RFC round 3: DEP-3: Patch Tagging Guidelines
On 29/06/09 at 22:53 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> 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
While I'm fine with Bug-<Vendor>, I don't think that having a list of
known vendors is a good idea: some upstreams might use their own
bugtracker (like Trac), so having a full list seems impossible.
> 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?
I think it would be fine to suggest to use the format.
--
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |
Reply to: