Re: RFC round 5: DEP-3: Patch Tagging Guidelines
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009, Ben Finney wrote:
> 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>.
Shall we do this even if it's “only” a draft standard?
> > +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?
Well, I'm not going to make it required when previous discussions lead to
waive this requirement in specific cases (and this sample demonstrates
such a case).
Origin is best used with an URL and it's not always practical to provide
one if you authored the patch and have not posted it anywhere.
You could point to some VCS URL but you might not be able to know that URL
before having commited the patch (in that case it's a chicken and egg
problem).
In the sample above, if I wanted to add the Origin field I would do
something like this:
Origin: vendor: written by maintainer, see Author
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog
Reply to: