Strawman: eliminating debdiffs

[Martin Pitt]

Luca Falavigna [2008-10-01 12:08 +0200]:
> we would want to push a fix to solve someone's problem ASAP, waiting for
> someone to release the fix for us could lead to longer delays. Ok, we
> can upload the fix directly, but we must discuss if a fix is important
> enough to have it in the archives immediately or not and check
> constantly if upstream committed our changes to finally close our bugs.

I agree to this as well. My current approach is to require that a
patch is reported upstream before I sponsor it, but I don't block on
upstream responding, or even applying the patch (unless, of course the
patch itself is bad).

> ... including upstream reference into the changelog entry? A link to
> upstream bugtracker, VCS commit or whatever should be enough to track
> status of our submitted patches, maybe enforcing [1] as our policy.

That's a common practice. However, I personally find that a bit
inconvenient to track. I have used tags in the patches themselves [1]
for my own packages for a while now and found that much better: when
looking at the patch you immediately see the necessary references, and
the changelog is not cluttered with lots of overlong lines. Usually I
write the patch "# Description: " field first (and all the
references), and then just copy the description into the changelog.

Martin

[1]  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/PatchTaggingGuidelines
-- 
Martin Pitt                        | http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com)  | Debian Developer  (www.debian.org)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20081002/da1909db/attachment-0001.pgp