On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@inai.de> wrote:
On Monday 2013-05-06 18:18, Greg Freemyer wrote:
To have this additional paragraph:
In general, if a patch is only destined to home/devel/factory projects a bugzilla entry is not required on new patches. For patches to released packages that will go out as updates, a bugzilla entry and reference is required as is a reference to the BNC# in the changes file.
Again I don't know for sure it is required on updates, but since a bugzilla entry is already required I can't think of any good reason not to add a BNC reference to the end of the patch description line.
IF there really are projects that require a BNC for new patches, then the above could be extended to say that.
As has already been said elsewhere in this thread, the Update Procedure BNC Entry is for the *update as a whole* and belongs into .changes, not so much to a single patch.
Of course, the two may coincide if a *preexisting* BNC Entry with a bugfix gets subsequently reused as a reference to use in the Maintenance Update Process.
Revised to say: In general, the bugzilla field is not required on new patches. For patches to released packages that will go out as updates, a bugzilla entry (BNC#) for the overall update in the changes file is required. If appropriate, the patch description should also include it. The primary use case of the patch field should be references to upstream bug trackers in case of PATCH-*-UPSTREAM patches, such patches should be submitted upstream first and then referenced in the patch tag. That helps a lot to keep track of patches, it makes it easy to determine which patches are still needed on version updates if upstream references the bug numbers in their changelog or release notes. Of course if there is already a corresponding bnc# bug open it should be referenced as well. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org