[PATCH] Karmic: Change patch templates to separate sauce and

[Tim Gardner]

Amit Kucheria wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 09:01:27AM -0600, Tim Gardner wrote:
>> Amit Kucheria wrote:
>>> Currently, all our patches go into SAUCE. The original definition
>>> of SAUCE was patches that would _not_ get accepted upstream (see
>>> the template). This has been lost.
>>> 
>>> This change to the templates will force us to think what patches
>>> should go upstream and what will be rejected.
>> If you use the patch-upstream template, do we delay pushing to our
>> core repo until its been accepted by an upstream maintainer? What
>> if its rejected? Perhaps we should keep a branch of pending
>> upstream patch submissions that don't get moved into our mainline
>> until they've been accepted upstream. (I know Stefan wanted more
>> process...)
> 
> Perhaps the rationale should be that anything that uses the -upstream
> template has already been emailed upstream. If it is rejected, it
> tells us that we need to revert the patch and refactor it and resend.
> Repeat ad infinitum.
> 

I guess thats the part of the feedback loop that I'm concerned about.
Even though a patch has been submitted upstream, we currently have no
mechanism for reconciling which patches were accepted, which were
rejected, and which were simply missed. If we are going to make a
determined effort to get these patches upstream, then we really need a
way to keep track of them.

>> On a more finicky note, can you change the patch template names so
>> that tab completion works on the first unique character?
>> upstream-patch instead of patch-upstream, config-update instead of
>> update-configs, etc.
> 
> I purposely changed the name to start with patch- so that it wouldn't
> autocomplete easily and one would have to think about the right
> template. :)
> 

I think you know how typing impaired I am.

> I can change it though.
> 
> /Amit
> 


-- 
Tim Gardner tim.gardner at canonical.com