Field "Upstream Status" in patch headers

Jim Gifford lfs at jg555.com
Tue Aug 17 12:02:12 PDT 2004


Nico R. wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Randy McMurchy wrote:
>[...]
>  
>
>>Stifling the submission of patches simply because they
>>aren't/can't/won't be submitted upstream serves no good purpose.
>>    
>>
>
>If a patch has not yet been submitted by the original poster, the LFS
>Patches project could/should submit it.
>
>"Do not submit any patches to the patches project which have not yet
>been submitted upstream. If you do nevertheless, and your patch is not
>marked as 'Do not submit', it will be submitted upstream without asking
>you."
>(something similar to this)
>
>Problems:
>a) Lazy users won't submit their patches, so there is a higher burden
>for our people at the patches project.
>b) Many people will mark their patches as "Do not submit" without a good
>reason.
>
>
>Do you think there is a gain in having a status "Unable to submit" or
>"Cannot submit" or similar? This would be used in case the maintainers
>can't be reached, because all known email addresses bounce permanently
>or because the package is orphaned. For patches with that status, one
>might want to retry after a few months; perhaps someone had taken over
>the project in the meantime.
>
>
>By the way, is it the "Patches Project" or the "patches project"? Or
>"The LFS Patches Project"???
>- -- 
>Nico
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
>
>iD8DBQFBIlKbxI5uhYOGv4URAnF4AJwJcFpBKdjzupaRmgWWKQjC+cb+6wCghGbX
>aYTxC6YS7KWklIK6e/3IjP8=
>=4obE
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>  
>
That's the problem with people's thinking, they expect Tush and I submit 
these patches upstream, if you can submit the patch here, you can easily 
do it on a bug report or the developers mailling list.


-- 
------
jim at linuxfromscratch.org
lfs at jg555.com

LFS User # 2577
Registered Linux User # 299986

FWD: 275410
IPKall: 360-968-1517




More information about the patches mailing list