On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 08:07:38PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > >> Someone recently posted an example of this. IMO we should write a DEP > >> on patch management and standardize those headers. And probably enforce > >> their usage for patches on sensitive packages (lintian checks?). > It would be nice if dpkg-source would automatically create a header > template if missing and fork an editor whenever it changes a > patch. Maybe add a comment section with a diffstat of the last changes > that will be removed when exiting the editor for quick reference while > describing the change.
I don't think we need such an integration at the dpkg-source level, lintian checks are more than enough IMO. Take for examples the huge amount of dpatch-es we have in Debian. Until a few months ago they were basically *all* not commented, with a boilerplate description in dpatch header. Then lintian started complaining about missing descriptions and a lot of people [1] started commenting them. The same approach would probably work for "3.0 (quilt)" dpkg format, as long as the matching lintian test exists. Cheers. [1] I haven't made any statistics, this is an empirical analysis from my recent experience: in the past all dpatches I stumbled upon uncommented patches, including packages of mine, my recent experience show the contrary. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ............... now what? [EMAIL PROTECTED],cs.unibo.it,debian.org} -<%>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/ (15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ? /\ All one has to do is hit the (15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema \/ right keys at the right time
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
