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

Re: Applied-Upstream field for Patch Tagging Guidelines (DEP-3)

Am Montag, den 23.11.2009, 08:42 +0100 schrieb Raphael Hertzog:
> Hi,
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> > When a new upstream version is released, I have to check all patches
> > they were accepted by upstream or not. I have to check each patch if
> > can drop it. It would make packaging new releases easier if there
> > an optional Applied-Upstream field. Every patch that was applied
> > upstream can be dropped. "no" or "not-yet" would indicate that the
> > 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
> when the next upstream version is out?

Yes, indeed.

> Do you expect to automate this operation?

Adding the field would be manual, but removing the patches can do a
simple script, when the next upstream release is out.

> I'm not sure we need a new field for this purpose, you could add a
> in the description field or even change the Forwarded: URL to point to
> upstream VCS to make it clearer that it got merged.

Automating the removal would be hard then.

> 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?

I think that the DEP-3 header should be in UTF-8 (ASCII would be the

Benjamin Drung
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Maintainer (www.debian.org)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil

Reply to: