Patches for trivial bugs sitting in bugzilla -> trivial patch policy?

[Rahul Sundaram]

Hi


On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:

> On 2014-06-27 10:17, Till Maas wrote:
>
>> Yes, I missed this as well. Also IIRC the guidelines demand an patch
>> status comment for each patch in the spec file, so just adding patch
>> without noting why it is not upstreamable or information about when/how
>> it was upstreamed is bad and should IMHO not be done by provenpackagers.
>>
>
> When patching others' code, I generally follow the existing style; I can
> tell you that *many* packages don't have these patch comments.  Thanks for
> bringing this to my attention.
>

The guidelines don't demand it but it is recommended

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_maintainer_responsibilities#Work_with_upstream

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Staying_close_to_upstream_projects

Rahul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20140627/1a9f292c/attachment.html>