Hi Sebastian! On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 16:41:18 +0100, Sebastian Harl wrote: > PS: I should not have replied to the BTS in the first place - please > take this to a private conversation if you have further comments.
Keeping into the PTS, since I think it's a useful discussion. > On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 03:50:17PM +0100, Luca Capello wrote: >> On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 14:38:37 +0100, Sebastian Harl wrote: >> > On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 12:19:04AM +0100, Luca Capello wrote: >> >> BTW, as soon as the BTS will assign a bug number, I'll post the git >> >> patch. >> > >> > Just a side-note: Are you aware that you may send a patch (including >> > the appropriate tag) along with your original bug report? >> >> For the patch: do you mean the one at [1], also available on my git >> repository [2]? In case not, what kind of patch? > [...] > > No, I was just saying that you do not need to wait for a bug number > being assigned to a bug if you want to provide a patch I based my patch to the one fixing #428418 [1] (upstream at [2]): the idea is that the *git* patch should be "complete", thus also including the Debian bug number the patch is trying to fix. Hope that now it's clear, since this is my workflow every time I deal with Debian bugs against upstream. Thx, bye, Gismo / Luca Footnotes: [1] http://bugs.debian.org/428418 [2] http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git;a=commit;h=e7509ee388480046a685f885431291f484de66de
pgpboMfcDIYJa.pgp
Description: PGP signature
