Re: patch numbers
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 11:10:07AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> 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.
If you like, i can commit in some of the stuff. Especially the stuff
like this which is mostly #ifdef protected could be a good candidate for
a commit. I will see the opinion of upstream about this, and do the
commits if it is ok, if you want that is.
> 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.
Would be less if we sent more stuff upstream.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: