emmet.hikory at gmail.com
Mon Feb 4 13:26:52 GMT 2008
James Westby wrote:
> Ah, thanks for the clarification. I'm intrigued how you knew that
> it was that file.
The "edit" link for attachments shows whether the attachment has the
patch flag set. There are several bugs against launchpad that ask for
a better interface, my favorite being 123915 (1). A more
comprehensive list is available by searching (2).
> Also, does anyone know why setting the checkbox doesn't translate
> in to an actual patch tag? (at least that I could see). It seems
> to me that this would make it more discoverable, and also allow us
> to remove the tag in cases like this, or where the patch isn't
There was a thread (3) about this in November, where various uses were
described, of both the "patch" tag and the attachment patch flag.
Depending on how people intend to use them, they may be semantically
different, as there might be something that is a patch and doesn't
have an attachment, or something that is not a solution to the bug,
but is nonetheless an attached patch file (perhaps representing part
of the solution). This is further complicated by the interaction
between LP hosted BZR branches and bug reports, where a given branch
may contain a fix, yet not be a "patch" in either the tag or
attachment flag sense.
What is needed is the development of some consensus as to the
preferred workflow when dealing with presented patches that are not
sponsorship requests. As this affects all of Ubuntu workflows,
Launchpad interfaces, and likely workflows of other projects using
Launchpad, it may be best developed with a blueprint for discussion at
a Development Summit.
More information about the ubuntu-devel