Hi, Am 04.09.2010 14:07, schrieb Bernhard Walle:
Am 04.09.2010 12:13, schrieb Marcus Rueckert:
On 2010-09-04 07:18:51 +0200, Bernhard Walle wrote:
Am 03.09.10 15:50, schrieb Dominique Leuenberger:
The line is as simple as: - Type of Patch - Patch filename - Whom to address in case of questions re: the patch And a short description.
Why don't you put such information in the patch header where it belongs?
it is easier to parse a few single line entries in spec files to create stats, than tons of patch files.
Why?
Currently I have the needed information in my patch headers and I hate to have even more cruft in the spec file. Its formatting is already pretty unreadable (even more as autobuild thinks it has to reformat to whatever it thinks is correct. This "thinking" has bugs since years. (Or is this gone meanwhile? I stopped fixing the format probably a year ago since every Factory commit broke it again). Personally I like the KDE approach like in http://old-en.opensuse.org/KDE/Patch_Annotation_Policy better. It's similar to the style I use in mozilla nowadays. The initial proposal with patch meta in the specfile doesn't convince me. The mentioning of added and dropped patches in the changes makes sense and usually I do that. So I'm not sure if we can get an agreement between all Factory contributors and if it's enforced then be warned about the consequences. At least I'm not sure if I would like to follow that policy. Someone else is invited to reformat my spec files for Factory but I might not care anymore. Wolfgang -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org