1 |
On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 12:30:08AM +1000, Michael Palimaka wrote: |
2 |
> On 7/04/2013 16:53, Kacper Kowalik wrote: |
3 |
> > On 06.04.2013 20:08, Michał Górny wrote: |
4 |
> >> As far as I'm aware, we don't really have much of a patch maintenance |
5 |
> >> policy in Gentoo. There a few loose rules like «don't put awfully big |
6 |
> >> files into FILESDIR» or the common sense «use unified diff», but no |
7 |
> >> complete and clear policy. |
8 |
|
9 |
As soon as I saw this I thought of the same clean-patches doc as Kacper. |
10 |
|
11 |
1-4 are basically about making patches work better in the automated ebuild |
12 |
framework, and I heartily agree (when it does not entail modifying 'upstream' |
13 |
or rather imported patches; shared with other distros in particular.) Your |
14 |
other post made a lot of sense (with the glob restriction.) |
15 |
|
16 |
> >> 5. The patch name shall shortly summarize the changes done by it. |
17 |
> >> |
18 |
> >> 6. Patch files shall start with a brief description of what the patch |
19 |
> >> does. Developers are encouraged to use git-style tags like 'Fixes:' to |
20 |
> >> point to the relevant bug URIs. |
21 |
> >> |
22 |
> >> 7. Patch combining is discouraged. Developers shall prefer multiple |
23 |
> >> patches following either the upstream commits or a logical commit |
24 |
> >> sequence (if changes are not committed upstream). |
25 |
> >> |
26 |
> >> The above-listed policy will apply to the patches kept in the gx86 tree |
27 |
> >> (in FILESDIRs) and patch archives created by Gentoo developers. They |
28 |
> >> will not apply to the patch archives created upstream. |
29 |
> >> |
30 |
|
31 |
Patches in FILESDIR are often those imported from and shared with other |
32 |
distros. |
33 |
|
34 |
> > there's at least one guideline written by the Ancient Ones that I know |
35 |
> > [1] It roughly follows the ideas that you've described. I think it'd be |
36 |
> > enough if people read it and used as a suggestion not a strict ruling. |
37 |
> > Imposing things like lexical order or git-style heading is a bit too |
38 |
> > much for me |
39 |
> > |
40 |
> > Do we really need rules for everything? |
41 |
> > |
42 |
> > Cheers, |
43 |
> > Kacper |
44 |
> > |
45 |
> > [1] http://dev.gentoo.org/~vapier/clean-patches |
46 |
> > |
47 |
> |
48 |
> We already have policy regarding patches[1], this just expands and |
49 |
> formalises it a bit more. |
50 |
|
51 |
Trouble is it's got a lot less meat than vapier's doc. If you're "expanding |
52 |
and formalising" it's a good opportunity to add more relevant info, as well |
53 |
as the formalities that will make EAPI-6 patching cleaner. |
54 |
|
55 |
> vapier's clean-patches document is an informative read, but I don't |
56 |
> think devspace is a good method of disseminating of information that may |
57 |
> not necessarily reflect the reality of the project. |
58 |
|
59 |
So why not just merge vapiers work into the devmanual, along with updated |
60 |
info to deal with newer git style tags? ATM the devmanual is woefully thin |
61 |
in comparison; it should be more prescriptive, along with the reasons, just |
62 |
like vapier wrote it the first time around (I actually link people to |
63 |
vapier's doc on IRC, but I'd never link them to the current devmanual as it |
64 |
has little tutorial content for a beginner, just some basic info mostly |
65 |
Gentoo-specific.) |
66 |
|
67 |
Sure, you can make the language a bit nicer, but really before you push policy |
68 |
there needs to be best practice info in place first (and that usually means |
69 |
content with wider development context, like the clean-patches doc.) |
70 |
|
71 |
Regards, |
72 |
steveL. |
73 |
-- |
74 |
#friendly-coders -- Where everybody knows your nick ;-) |