Re: patch numbers
Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 07:24:45AM -0500, Warren Turkal wrote:
>> The patch numbers are not being properly followed.
>
> #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.
Okay, I didn't know that distribution specific info was kept upstream. Bad
Imake...bad!!!
> 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.
Upstream has a completely different fix. I can completely understand why
this one was not caught. I was saying that, when it is discovered that the
patch fixes something fixed upstream, we should also label that patch as a
000 series patch.
> Thanks for your vigilance in chasing all this up tho. :)
No problem...I am braving the world the the X inner sanctum. Does anyone
here know if the X people monitor the bugzilla dilligently, or should I
post a message to the x devel list upon submitting a number of bug reports
providing links and short descriptions.
BTW, my goal is to get as many of the debian patches merged as possible
upstream so that they will not have to be ported when 4.4 comes out.
wt
--
Treasurer, GOLUM, Inc.
http://www.golum.org
Reply to: