kubuntu patches and backtraces

[Harald Sitter]

On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 7:11 PM, Harald Sitter <apachelogger at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu at kitterman.com> wrote:
>> But only for long term, not upstreamable changes, right?
>
> The upstreamable ones are per the standing policy (since Lucid?)
> expected to go upstream first anyway.
>
> While applying the naming to such patches would in fact be necessary
> to carry the thought through and ensure backtraces always show changes
> to upstream code I don't think it viable for a patch that may be
> around for a month or two. Also it would then need to be applied to
> *all* patches which would cause *substantial* creation and maintenance
> overhead. For example if we backport a fix from upstream's 4.11 git
> branch (targetting 4.11.4) to our 4.11.3 packages that patch would
> then need to be modified to reflect it's patchyness in a backtrace. I
> at least am ETOOLAZY for that :P
>
> The primary motivation for the function prefixes is to enable everyone
> to identify *our distro specific code* crashing.

Ah, in case the reply was not clear... yes, my proposal only applies
to non-upstreamable patches ;).

HS