[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RFC round 5: DEP-3: Patch Tagging Guidelines

On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 10:30:14PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Sep 2009, Guido Günther wrote:
> > I tried to point that out in June:
> >  http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/06/msg00551.html
> > but failed. It'd be really helpful if DEP-3 would be compatible with the
> > git format-patch output.

I missed that thread earlier and reacted to the dda mail in
<[🔎] 20090907234314.GE13289@artemis.corp>

> Would it be helpful to say that From: can be an alias for Author: and
> Subject: an alias for Description:?

I made a full proposal for "header" fixes to be git/hg/... compatible.

> git format-patch alone will stil not be enough to generate a DEP3-compliant
> header but would that resolve your concerns?

It will be compatible if you relax the use of headers to pseudo headers,
and forget about your (sorry) ridiculous request for Description to be a
rfc822 formatted field. Not only it's never used by anyone, but it's
also a major PITA to edit.

Like I said in my other mail, you want a Subject as a summary, and what
you call Description is all that:
  - isn't a header
  - isn't a recognized pseudo-header
  - is before the patch or an optional "---\n" line.

It's a pretty simple definition, rather simple to implement in any kind
of patch parsing tool.

Indeed it's not compatible with grep-dctrl or whatever, but sadly for
you, there _IS_ a standard for patches already, and it looks like that:

  - http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/8/31/369
  - http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/8/31/40
  - http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/126207
  - http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.parsers.sparse/2001
  - and I could go on with wine, x.org, gnome, ... patch submissions...
    damn even the glibc nowadays !

> Anyway, I'd rather wait some time until people have tried using this
> format before deciding if we must make some special case due to
> git format-patch.

It's not a special case. Kernel people, git people, gnome people, X.org
people, all can cherry-pick patches and format-patch them away. If you
ask them to add one missing header like the actual source or commid-id
they took the patch from, they'll probably do it (I would at least). If
you ask to rewrite the full stuff, then really, "go to hell" will
probably be the (sane) answer you'll get.

·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O                                                madcoder@debian.org
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: