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

Re: Using a patch naming convention



On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:25:00AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Rene Mayorga dijo [Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 11:05:18PM -0600]:
> > 
> > The idea is to stand a status of the patch using a name convention, with
> > status I mean:
> >  1) Patch is Debian specific and there is no need to send it to upstream
> >  2) Patch needs to be send to upstream
> >  3) Patch is already sent, and needs to be removed on the next release if is
> >     included.
> 
> [....] the difference
> between 2 and 3 is not necessarily so - When I come up with a patch, I
> might first apply it in my packaging and later report the bug, or the
> other way around. Or upstream might use a different logic for the same
> effect, or whatever. 

The idea is that have a simple way to note if the bug was
already forward to upstream, the reason why not could be very random
depending on upstream/maintainer/etc.


Cheers
-- 
Rene Mauricio Mayorga   |  jabber: rmayorga@jabber.org
http://rmayorga.org     |  
--------------------------------------------------
08B6 58AB A691 DD56 C30B  8D37 8040 19FA A209 C305

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: