On 11/30/2010 04:38 PM, Andrew Flegg wrote:
If anything, it sounds like Nokia's processes are the ones which need
to change if they want to be a good open source participant in MeeGo -
I'm not sure such a change would be accepted for any other
contributor, would it?
Nokia is one of the players in this problem, but it's not the only one. Think of
any other open source project whose upstream is not MeeGo, and which we want to
package in MeeGo. For instance:
Developer releases liblib 1.0, and that gets packaged into Meego. Then he
refactors it so that all methods are twice as fast. We writes "All methods are
twice as fast" in the commit message of the SVC repository, then he packages it
for MeeGo and writes the same comment in the .changes file.
Isn't that good enough information? Why do we want to force him to go through
the extra burden of creating a bug or feature request?
What about rewording the criteria like this:
"The .changes file must clearly describe the new features, bugfixes and
improvements, and contain references to all the MeeGo.com bugs and features
addressed, if any."
Ciao,
Alberto
--
http://blog.mardy.it <-- geek in un lingua international!
_______________________________________________
MeeGo-packaging mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-packaging
