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

Ralf Corsepius rc040203 at freenet.de
Fri Jun 27 16:02:09 UTC 2014


On 06/27/2014 05:50 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> 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

Thanks for digging out these links - This matches with my memory, 
unfortuately I could not find them when responding eariler.

The intention of all this is to keep the amount of patches in Fedora low 
and to "pay it back to upstreams" iff possible.

However, in many (most?) cases this is not possible or feasible.

Ralf




More information about the devel mailing list