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 |