Using the "patch" tag for bugs

[Emmet Hikory]

On Mi, 2007-11-28 at 00:26 -0800, Jordan Mantha wrote:
> I also think it's useful to have a tag to indicate a "triaged" patch,
> that is one that is really a patch and ready for a dev to look at.

On Nov 28, 2007 5:30 PM, Daniel Holbach wrote:
> I feel we should make use of http://wiki.ubuntu.com/SponsorshipProcess
> in that case.

    I think there is a gap between "this bug has a real patch, and
needs a developer to integrate & test" and "this bug has an attachment
that is a sponsorship request".  For more complex bugs, it is not rare
for three or four candidate patches(1) to be passed back and forth
between developers(2) before a solution is agreed to be correct, and
there is anything suitable for upload.

    I'm not opposed to using a team to track these, rather than a tag,
but believe the focus should be on getting the patches to those with
the technical skill to apply them and test them, rather than looking
at direct upload.  Further, I do not believe that the sponsors queues
are the best place for anything that is not a candidate for immediate
upload: these queues are a tool by which people who do not have upload
rights may request upload, and not a mechanism to collect all
submitted patches.

1: traditional patches: not necessarily debdiffs
2: people who develop or maintain software: not necessarily members of
~ubuntu-dev

-- 
Emmet HIKORY