On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 4:17 AM, Andrew D Kirch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Patches in the metadata.xml should have some sort of status tracking for > each patch, repoman should flag any that don't, and warn on any that have > not been submitted upstream unless the status is signed off on by a herd > leader (such as Gentoo specific patches). This would provide visual feedback > for users and developers with regard to a pretty important metric on how > successful Gentoo is at getting patches pushed back to developers.
It was proposed recently to add some standarized headers to all new patches for maintenance purposes. Something like: Source: patch by John Foo, backported from upstream, whatever. Upstream: In revision 245, rejected, foo. Reason: Build system sucks I think that's all we need in order to know how were things when the patch was added and if it needs to be pushed/tracked upstream, removed in the next version of the package, etc. Some of us already put these kind of headers, or at least an URL to upstream bug or a meaningful source of info about the patch. However, tracking the status of every patch since its inclusion in portage until it's removed would be a huge work overhead... and I doubt it's worthy. Regards, -- Santiago M. Mola Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
