On 17/06/09 at 09:04 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > * `Bug-<Vendor>` or `Bug` (optional) > > > > > > It contains one or more URLs (space separated) pointing to the > > > related bugs > > > (possibly fixed by the patch). The `Bug` field is reserved > > > for the bug URL(s) in the upstream bug tracker. > > > > What about using Debian: (like Ubuntu's Patch Tagging Guidelines) to > > indicate which Debian bug is fixed by this patch? > > The reason I wanted a common prefix is that we don't have an authoritative > list of vendors and as such it would be best if the content of the field > could be validated based on the common prefix.
We could have Debian: for the Debian bug, and Bug-(Gnome|KDE|..) for other projects. > > I Think that there's one field missing: DebianSpecific. This field would > > indicate why the patch is Debian-specific, and should not be forwarded > > upstream. > > Re-read the description of "Status", it already contains this: > | The first line should consist of a single keyword among > | "<vendor>-specific" (the patch must not be forwarded as it is > | specific to a vendor, ex: branding patches), [...] > | Supplementary lines can be used to explain in more details the status of > | the patch. It should be used for example to explain why the patch has > | been rejected, or why this change is only meaningful for the vendor. I think that this information is important enough not to be inside supplementary lines of an optional tag... -- | Lucas Nussbaum | lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: lu...@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org