Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-gnome (84 mails)

[Michael Wolf <maw@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 02:52 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just looked quickly at 6 packages (originally because of the patches
> marked as PATCH-NEEDS-REBASE), and I found out that 11 patches were
> "deletable". Most of them were still applied because the fix for
> upstream was slightly different (so they were not PATCH-NEEDS-REBASE).
>
> I think it'd make sense if we were a bit stricter when updating a
> package to a new upstream version: quickly checking if the patches are
> still useful would be nice :-) Sure, it's sometimes hard, but there are
> a few trivial patches (like "adding some #include") for which this is
> really easy.
>
> I know this is not enforcable (and I'm not sure we'd want to enforce
> this), but think about it :-)

Well, half of the reason for patch tagging was so that we could
programatically discover interesting facts about patches.  So, for any
patch that has a bnc bug and an upstream bug, it would be useful if a
plugin could inspect the upstream bug and report its status.  It could
probably use or be based on the same bugzilla code that bugbot uses.


On a related note, I think it would make sense for consistency's sake to
switch to using bnc#12345 instead of bnc12345 in patch tags.  No need to
change the ones we've got currently, but in the future (that is, when
reviewing existing patches/tags and creating new ones) using consistent
notation in changelogs and tags seems like a no-brainer to me. :)


Michael.


-- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx