On Sunday 18 May 2008, Ben Finney wrote: > George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I strongly believe that [...] there is no any urgent need for more > > infrastrucre enhancements and yet another places to look at (like > > teaching BTS/PTS of doing additional DD-upstream communication > > processing which brings even more complexity to the scene). > > How is the Debian BTS "another place to look at"? It's already an > essential place to look for information about what changes are made in > a Debian package. > > > In the world of diversion, there should be a single point of > > unification one can safely return to. > > The Debian BTS is already on the list of places to go for information > about Debian package changes. The proposal in this thread doesn't > increase that.
Eh ;-)... dumping out a phrase out of the context leads to undefined results. I that respect you failed to get my point or I failed to emphasize it as well. So, if your diff.gz brings multiple logical changes to the upstream source in a combined fashion, BTS won't help you make these look better from a reviewer point of view, no matter how cool BTS is tag-tracking changes being forwarded/rejected/whatever upstream. This is superfluous, but yet not useless, since if my system claims that I run upstream 'foo' version 'x.y' I know that all the patches before 'x.y' have been merged upstream and the additional material is place in debian/patches/ ... logically separated and documented in several diffs if any... you get the idea. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu> fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
