[opensuse-gnome] Reviewing patches when updating a package to an upstream version
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 :-) Thanks, Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+help@opensuse.org
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
On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 12:45 -0600, Michael Wolf wrote:
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.
also it would be good, to at least catch some mistakes, if we did a much
deeper review of all submissions. That is usually we (me included) just
submit to G:F and then forward to o:F. Maybe it would be good to
establish a review process for most changes
--
Rodrigo Moya
participants (3)
-
Michael Wolf -
Rodrigo Moya -
Vincent Untz