The Debian/Ubuntu SSL bug

[Jeff Spaleta]

On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Dave Jones <davej at redhat.com> wrote:
>  Something the SuSE guys have done which I'm thinking we should adopt for our
>  patches (in the kernel at least), is a header at the top of each patch
>  detailing its upstream status, (and if not upstream, why not).

A status header for all patches might be a good thing, if....
we can do it in such a way that we can establish some sort of process
that periodically reviews the status headers for each patch and uses
manpower to do the follow-up for older patches or patches without a
status header.

I would imagine it could be run in a similar way to how the Feature
Process is run, with a Patch Wrangler (Team) who is(are) deputized to
seek out maintainers when updates concern patches status are needed.

Did you also intend to draw a line in the sand concerning the age of a
patch? If a patch is a certain age it automatically needs more
frequent status updates? Sort of like when you reach a certain age and
you need to go in for a colonoscopy on a regular basis?


-jef