Field "Upstream Status" in patch headers

Tushar Teredesai linux_from_scratch at
Tue Aug 17 12:10:23 PDT 2004

Nico R. wrote:

>The page <URL:> lists
>the field "Upstream Status" as mandatory.
>I am often unsure what to use as value for this field, and I think it
>might be valuable if we made some *suggestions* on that web page. For
>example, we could define the following values:
> * Do not submit
> * Not submitted
> * Submitted
> * Not Accepted
> * Accepted
> * Merged
>The meaning of them is probably clear to everyone. I assume that people
>will start using them if we suggest it, and that could make things a
>bit easier.
Nice suggestion. Forwarding to website list. Please replace with the 
following explanation.

Upstream Status:
Whether the patch has been submitted to and/or accepted by the original 
developers. The following are some suggestions for this field along with 
the explanations:

    * Not submitted - LFS Specific
      The patch is specific to LFS and has no value upstream. This
      should generally be avoided.
    * Not submitted - [Test Version, Hack, Maintainer AWOL, ...]
      The patch has not been submitted upstream for some reason - e.g.
      the patch needs to be properly tested, the patch is a hack that
      will not be acceptable upstream, the maintainer is AWOL, ...
    *  From Upstream
      The patch is submitted upstream (not necessarily by you) and will
      be available in a future release.
    * Submitted Upstream
      The patch has been submitted upstream (not necessarily by you) but
      there is no word yet from the maintainers.
    * Rejected Upstream
      The patch was submitted upstream (not necessarily by you) but was
      rejected by the maintainers.

If someone other than you had submitted the patch upstream, please 
acknowledge the person in the Description section. Also, it is always 
useful to add an URI for the relevant discussion.

>Currently, I don't know what value to use for a patch that comes from
>upstream: I got the official fix from upstream CVS and converted it to
>'diff -Naur' format. Yes, the patch is merged upstream, but it also
>comes from there. "Merged" would mean to me that I sent the patch
>upstream and somebody accepted and merged it. So does "From upstream
>CVS" seem more adequate? Suggestions?
 From Upstream CVS would be adequate.

>Not all our patches currently have that mandatory field. Should we
>insert it if it is missing or just keep all patches as-is and only
>require it on new patches?
These are the patches that were submitted before the field was made 
mandatory. It is of-course useful if someone provides properly modified 

Tushar Teredesai
  mailto:tushar at

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!

More information about the patches mailing list