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

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

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 04:26:21PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Benjamin Drung <bdrung@ubuntu.com> writes:
> > Am Montag, den 23.11.2009, 09:18 +0100 schrieb Goswin von Brederlow:
> >> Benjamin Drung <bdrung@ubuntu.com> writes:
> >> > 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'd also find this very useful.  I mentioned it in
before Raphaël pointed me at this thread.

> So what you want is (overly verbose)
> Accepted-upstream: r1234 345836583468534854856834568395648
> Will-Be-Obsolete-in: 1.2
> while you still only have upstreams 1.1 in Debian.
> I think the idea is good. The implementation seems to be in
> doubt (where should it mention this, what should the field be called).
> I would like to have both the information when it was commited and
> when it will be released. The commit would be interesting because
> often it differs from the debian patch to accomodate the newer
> upstream developement. The release to know when the patch can be
> removed.

Yes, I agree we need both.  (For instance, I forwarded a bunch of
patches just before OpenSSH 5.4p1 was released, many of which will be in
5.5p1; I plan to upload 5.4p1 soon, but would also like to annotate
which patches are in 5.5p1.)

I don't know that we need to bother with two fields, though.  There's
precedent in DEP-3 for fields with internal structure; the format of
Origin is not dissimilar to what we need here.  How about something like
the following?

Index: dep3.mdwn
--- dep3.mdwn	(revision 142)
+++ dep3.mdwn	(working copy)
@@ -178,6 +178,14 @@
     This field can be used to record the date when the meta-information
     was last updated. It should use the ISO date format `YYYY-MM-DD`.
+  * `Applied-Upstream` (optional)
+    This field can be used to document the fact that the patch has been
+    applied upstream. It may contain the upstream version expected to
+    contain this patch, or the URL or commit identifier of the upstream
+    commit (with commit identifiers prefixed with "commit:", as in the
+    `Origin` field), or both separated by a comma and a space.
 Sample DEP-3 compliant headers
@@ -217,6 +225,15 @@
     Bug-Debian: http://bugs.debian.org/265678
     Author: Thiemo Seufer <ths@debian.org>
+A patch submitted and applied upstream:
+    Description: Fix widget frobnication speeds
+     Frobnicating widgets too quickly tended to cause explosions.
+    Forwarded: http://lists.example.com/2010/03/1234.html
+    Author: John Doe <johndoe-guest@users.alioth.debian.org>
+    Applied-Upstream: 1.2, http://bzr.example.com/frobnicator/trunk/revision/123
+    Last-Update: 2010-03-29
 Related links


Colin Watson                                       [cjwatson@debian.org]

Reply to: