Re: RFC round 5: DEP-3: Patch Tagging Guidelines
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 01:23:40PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 1:14 AM, gregor herrmann<firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 10:13:58 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> >> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009, Ben Finney wrote:
> >> > I think that either of ‘Origin: vendor’ (for a patch created by the
> >> > package maintainer) or ‘Origin: other’ would be better than omitting the
> >> > field. I'd like to see the examples recommend its use in these cases.
> >> I don't share this opinion, let's see if we can have some more feedback.
> > I prefer to omit Origin and interpret a
> > missing-Origin-with-Author-present as a Debian patch.
> > Adding a URL (pointing where - to a webinterface of a VCS?) seems
> > cumbersome, and just stating in some way that the origin is Debian or
> > the person who wrote the patch/put in into the package seems like a
> > duplication of information and effort.
> I disagree, imagine the situation where Fedora imports some patches
> from Debian and then the Debian maintainer looks at Fedoras patches.
> In that case I, as the Debian maintainer would want to know which
> patches come from Debian so I can ignore them or check if they are
> modified from Debian.
Relying on patch headers for that is the best way to get inaccurate
information because other parties are pretty much likely to not modify
the headers even when they modify the patch. Or remove them. Which means
you still need to do the research, and the patch header is of no use for