Re: RFC round 5: DEP-3: Patch Tagging Guidelines
Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> writes:
> I plan to switch the DEP's status to CANDIDATE since it's about time
> to start using this new format to try it out. Once I've done this,
> I'll announce it on d-d-a to encourage people to start using it.
Thanks for your ongoing work on this, I'm finding it useful.
> -The meta-information would be stored in a set of RFC-2822 compliant
> -fields. Those fields should start on the first non-empty line (after
> -having stripped whitespace characters at the start and end of lines).
> +The meta-information would be stored in a set of RFC-2822-like
> +fields (the difference with RFC-2822 is that newlines are meaningful in
> +the Description field, they are not simple continuation characters).
A minor point: If we're going to refer to the standard for these fields,
then RFC 2822 is obsoleted by the current draft standard, RFC 5322
<URL:http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322>.
-The meta-information would be stored in a set of RFC-2822 compliant
-fields. Those fields should start on the first non-empty line (after
-having stripped whitespace characters at the start and end of lines).
+The meta-information would be stored in a set of RFC-5322-like
+fields (the difference with RFC-5322 is that newlines are meaningful in
+the Description field, they are not simple continuation characters).
+Those fields should start on the first non-empty line (after having
+stripped whitespace characters at the start and end of
+lines).
> +Sample DEP-3 compliant headers
> +------------------------------
[…]
> +A patch created by the the Debian maintainer John Doe, which got forwarded
> +and rejected:
> +
> + Description: Use FHS compliant paths by default
> + Upstream is not interested in switching to those paths.
> + .
> + But we will continue using them in Debian nevertheless to comply with
> + our policy.
> + Forwarded: http://lists.example.com/oct-2006/1234.html
> + Author: John Doe <john@foobar.com>
> + Last-Update: 2006-12-21
I would prefer if the ‘Origin’ field was recommended (or even required?)
for every patch by this specification. What would an appropriate value
for this field be in this example?
--
\ “Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual |
`\ profit without individual responsibility.” —Ambrose Bierce, |
_o__) _The Devil's Dictionary_, 1906 |
Ben Finney
Reply to: