Re: Applied-Upstream field for Patch Tagging Guidelines (DEP-3)
Hi,
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> When a new upstream version is released, I have to check all patches if
> they were accepted by upstream or not. I have to check each patch if I
> can drop it. It would make packaging new releases easier if there were
> an optional Applied-Upstream field. Every patch that was applied
> upstream can be dropped. "no" or "not-yet" would indicate that the patch
> was not applied yet. If the patch was applied, it could contain the
> revision (like "r4681") or a link to the VCS commit.
>
> What do you think about my suggestion?
I suppose that you would want to add the field as soon as the patch is
committed upstream so that you can more easily identify patches to remove
when the next upstream version is out?
Do you expect to automate this operation?
I'm not sure we need a new field for this purpose, you could add a comment
in the description field or even change the Forwarded: URL to point to the
upstream VCS to make it clearer that it got merged.
Let's see what other people are thinking of it.
BTW, speaking of DEP-3, someone mentioned that it doesn't tell the
encoding to use. Does anyone oppose to adding a note saying that it
should aim at being ASCII-only and if that's not possible then UTF-8
should be used?
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog
Reply to: