| 1 |
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 4:17 AM, Andrew D Kirch <trelane@×××××××.net> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Patches in the metadata.xml should have some sort of status tracking for |
| 4 |
> each patch, repoman should flag any that don't, and warn on any that have |
| 5 |
> not been submitted upstream unless the status is signed off on by a herd |
| 6 |
> leader (such as Gentoo specific patches). This would provide visual feedback |
| 7 |
> for users and developers with regard to a pretty important metric on how |
| 8 |
> successful Gentoo is at getting patches pushed back to developers. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
It was proposed recently to add some standarized headers to all new |
| 11 |
patches for maintenance purposes. Something like: |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Source: patch by John Foo, backported from upstream, whatever. |
| 14 |
Upstream: In revision 245, rejected, foo. |
| 15 |
Reason: Build system sucks |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I think that's all we need in order to know how were things when the |
| 18 |
patch was added and if it needs to be pushed/tracked upstream, removed |
| 19 |
in the next version of the package, etc. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Some of us already put these kind of headers, or at least an URL to |
| 22 |
upstream bug or a meaningful source of info about the patch. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
However, tracking the status of every patch since its inclusion in |
| 25 |
portage until it's removed would be a huge work overhead... and I |
| 26 |
doubt it's worthy. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Regards, |
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Santiago M. Mola |
| 31 |
Jabber ID: cooldwind@×××××.com |
Archives