On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 07:24:45AM -0500, Warren Turkal wrote: > The patch numbers are not being properly followed. > > I have been submitting some patches upstream that are already fixed. They > should be in a category not unlike patches from upstream so that we know > that they can be deleted in the next version. I propose that 000 type > patches should also include this class of patches such that 000 patches can > just be deleted upon moving to a new upstream version. A patch of this type > is 102, the sparc pci fix. I know that we may not know immediately when > something like this is fixed, but when we know, it should be moved. > > Also, I have come across patches that are not labeled 900+ that are debian > specific. I think that we need to promote these types of patches to the > 900+ series patches. A couple patches of this type are 003 and 800, debian > specific config patches. Please consider debian specificity when numbering > patches. #003 should be merged upstream, so other people can build Debian packages; the only part is where we do #define DebianMaintainer YES, or such - that's the only part we should keep as Debian-specific. Ditto #800. As for #102 and the like, it's likely that the patch was developed by a Debianite and sent to us, and we merged it and upstream later picked it up, so the numbering became inaccurate (sort of) *after* the fact. Thanks for your vigilance in chasing all this up tho. :) -d -- Daniel Stone <daniel@fooishbar.org> http://www.debian.org - http://www.kde.org - http://www.freedesktop.org "Configurability is always the best choice when it's pretty simple to implement" -- Havoc Pennington, gnome-list
Attachment:
pgpRiBHRk6Pqf.pgp
Description: PGP signature