Field "Upstream Status" in patch headers

Nico R. n-roeser at gmx.net
Tue Aug 17 12:37:39 PDT 2004


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Tushar Teredesai wrote:
[...]
> 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.

Description, not Origin?

So should we use something like
- ----
Origin: http://example.org/pipermail/2004-August/patches/000008.html
Description: Original patch by Anon Y. Mous. Slightly modified for LFS
             (/usr instead of /usr/local).
             This patch fixes foo, and adds bar to the package.
- ----
?


[...]
>>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 patches.

If a patch is modified and only the headers are changed, we hit a
problem: Users may get different file content on subsequent downloads
of the same patch file. For example, we may want to change "Submitted
upstream" to "From upstream" in the Upstream Status field, or we may
want to insert the field into old patches.

I assume that the patch version number must be incremented in that case
as well?
- -- 
Nico
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBIl6HxI5uhYOGv4URAtzvAJ9x99e3lMp3f+5xfVMM93PktAhr2ACglSaM
w8qsRCRZyhJP3edNLgGK4H8=
=NCXr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



More information about the patches mailing list