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@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+help@opensuse.org