On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 7:11 PM, Harald Sitter <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> wrote: >> But only for long term, not upstreamable changes, right? > > The upstreamable ones are per the standing policy (since Lucid?) > expected to go upstream first anyway. > > While applying the naming to such patches would in fact be necessary > to carry the thought through and ensure backtraces always show changes > to upstream code I don't think it viable for a patch that may be > around for a month or two. Also it would then need to be applied to > *all* patches which would cause *substantial* creation and maintenance > overhead. For example if we backport a fix from upstream's 4.11 git > branch (targetting 4.11.4) to our 4.11.3 packages that patch would > then need to be modified to reflect it's patchyness in a backtrace. I > at least am ETOOLAZY for that :P > > The primary motivation for the function prefixes is to enable everyone > to identify *our distro specific code* crashing.
Ah, in case the reply was not clear... yes, my proposal only applies to non-upstreamable patches ;). HS -- kubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kubuntu-devel
