I support that idea.
as said in the other ML conversation the format should look like
Upstream-Status: Inactive-Upstream [<last release date>(, <last commit
date>)]
with the part in the ()-brackets being opinion, as we mainly aim for
using releases anyway.
This time I would actually have it as much machine readable as possible,
so it might be suitable to dictate a yyyymmdd date format pattern here.
On 09.12.21 15:33, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
Hello,
the ongoing patch review revealed that we need more clear markers for
patches which should be upstreamed but where upstream is defunct.
Existing docs[1] suggest:
Upstream-Status: Inappropriate [no upstream]*
*
but that is problematic due to perception of 'Inappropriate' patches
as something that shouldn't be looked at unless it causes rebase
conflicts [2].
So the suggestion is to use
Upstream-Status: Inactive-Upstream
Links:
[1]
https://www.openembedded.org/wiki/Commit_Patch_Message_Guidelines#Patch_Header_Recommendations:_Upstream-Status
<https://www.openembedded.org/wiki/Commit_Patch_Message_Guidelines#Patch_Header_Recommendations:_Upstream-Status>
[2] https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/159448
<https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/159448>
Thanks,
Alex
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#1383):
https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-architecture/message/1383
Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/87612566/21656
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-architecture/unsub
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
