On 17/06/09 at 12:40 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Hello everybody, > > I'll try to do some new proposals based on your feedback. But first let > me address the topic of the usefulness of the proposal. While there are > currently no tools making use of this format, I can imagine many > interesting usage for this information. It starts with the simple stats > (how many debian specific patch do we use?) and goes on to providing > a nice web interface where people can browse all patches: > - check all non-forwarded patches and help forwarding them > - let upstream developers browse all patches which are not backports > - let other distributions check all patches which are not debian-specific > In any case, it's a required step IMO if we want to increase the visibility > of our patches and ensure they are better reviewed.
It seems that for many people, the scope of this DEP is unclear. Will our packages be RC-buggy if we don't follow that tagging? Or is it only a recommended format? I think that this should be clarified. I personally think that this should be a best practice, strongly encouraged, but not something mandatory. We might want to move to something mandatory later, though. > On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 06:12:49PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > > * `Signed-off-by` (optional) > > > > > > This field can be used to document the fact that the patch has been > > > reviewed by one or more persons. It should list their names and > > > emails in the standard format (similar to the example given for > > > the `Origin` field), separated by commas if needed. > > > > For the avoidance of confusion I would suggest that this be changed to > > Reviewed-by - the normal Linux/git Signed-off-by has a specific meaning > > that needn't include actually doing a code review. > > I started first with "Reviewed-by" and then thought that it was stupid to > not reuse the name that is already vastly used for a similar purpose. What > do other people think? I'm fine with both names. I prefer Reviewed-by. > On Tue, 16 Jun 2009, Charles Plessy wrote: > > The dh_make template for debian/copyright induces many developers to put > > their > > packaging work under the GPL, and I have already seen packages whose > > license is > > otherwise BSD-ish with such patches. If the maintainer suddenly goes MIA and > > the patch is non-trivial, then in theory if we want to respect what is > > written, > > we are stuck with a GPL'ed patch. Therefore, we have an optional License > > field > > to make things crystal clear if necessary. > > I have no opposition against an optional License field. Can you try to word a > description for it? > > On the other side, I'm also not convinced it's really useful... if a patch > author wants some specific licence different from upstream's license, he > should make that explicit in the patch itself when he adds his own > copyright notice. Right. > > for your effort to unifiy the format. Personally, I do not mind changing our > > local format for the DEP3 format as long as we have one release cycle to do > > it. > > Some of our packages have a very slow turnover. > > There's no forced switch planned... it has not technical impact on the > distribution, so I don't mind if not all packages are converted, after > it's up to you to see if new lintian warnings annoy you enough or not to > live with it. :) See my comment above about this. It should be added to the introduction of the DEP. > Now I'll switch to the discussion about the Origin/Status/Patch fields. > It seems that this set of fields is not as optimized as it could be. > [...] I'm fine with what came out of this discussion. > > Also, from reading this i'm assuming that debian bugs would be identified > > by "Bug(s)-Debian"? that seems a bit unwieldly, esp given that there will > > likely be more references to debian bugs than upstream/cross-stream bugs. > > Maybe we should also add a special shorthand for "Closes: #nnn" or similar? > > > > My personal preference is that Debian gets "Bug" and there's a seperate > > "Bug(s)-Upstream" field, but maybe there are also arguments to the > > contrary? > > One of the goals is also to make it easier to share patches among > distribution vendors. So I don't really like to make the format too much > Debian-centric. > > > > What about using Debian: (like Ubuntu's Patch Tagging Guidelines) to > > > indicate which Debian bug is fixed by this patch? > > > > Debian: could be considered a shorthand alias for Bug-Debian maybe? I > > guess that could also address the above issue that i mentioned. > > See my answer to Lucas. Well, you didn't answer my point: > We could have Debian: for the Debian bug, and Bug-(Gnome|KDE|..) for > other projects. My concern is that Ubuntu already has a policy like this (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/PatchTaggingGuidelines). I would really like ours to be compatible with theirs, so patches can freely be copied between Ubuntu and Debian. Having a different format sounds like a very bad idea. Have you tried contacting the people involved in the Ubuntu policy? It might be possible to change it. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: lu...@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
