Santiago M. Mola wrote: > On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 12:02 AM, Tobias Scherbaum > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Santiago M. Mola wrote: > > > >> 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. > > > > I don't think it's a huge work overhead, it'll take an additional minute > > per included patch to include a minimal description into the ebuild(s) > > and use a standardized header for the patch. Compared to the time one > > needs to spend when searching for information on that patch somewhen > > later on it's worth every minute. > > > > Of course, puting a header with info in every patch is not a work > overhead and I'd say it should be policy. What I meant is that it's no > worth to track the status of every patch after it's added, as was > suggested.
Agreed. Everyone of us is doing some kind of status tracking for each and every patch at least for every version bump, additional status tracking like Andrew suggested would be a good thing (tm) but is plain impossible to realize for now given the fact we're lacking the needed manpower. Tobias
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
