On Sun, 2008-05-18 at 21:40 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > (you can skip to the end for a summary of what I think we agree on) > > > The only > > > thing that he would additionaly get is a notification when the change is > > > applied upstream and fixed in Debian by a new upstream version. > > > > Don echoed that sentiment by offering just to not archive bugs tagged > > with 'divergence'. I would agree that the submitter doesn't really need > > to know when Fixed: is replaced by Closes: - it is a maintainer issue > > but one that does need to be publicly visible. > > OK, but then you have to remove the divergence tag when the change is > integrated upstream -- not just close the bug. This would be still be a > manual process, right?
I suppose bts-link could be utilised - after all, the bug tagged 'divergence' should also be forwarded so it can be updated from there. However, it might be just as well that it is manual. As I mentioned before, removing a tag can be done by anyone so it's not a big issue. > Users can choose whichever bug tracker they prefer, but DDs should > always report patches that should be reported upstream to the upstream > BTS. It would be nonsense if DDs started reporting patches for upstream > only to the Debian BTS. ok. > OK, I think that we generally agree. Let's summarize again to make sure: > > 1) Encourage maintainers to use patches in debian/patches. Define some > useful pseudo-headers. Definitely. > 2) Build patches.debian.org, fully automated export of Debian patches. Yes. > 3) For patches that need to be sent upstream, a pseudo header in the > patch indicates where the submission of the patch to upstream is > discussed. > -> If upstream has a BTS, the discussion happens on upstream's > BTS, and the pseudo header in the patch points there. > -> If upstream doesn't have a BTS, a bug is created/reused on the Debian > BTS, and the discussion with upstream is Cced with this bug. The > pseudo header in the patch points to that Debian BTS bug. > Additionally, this bug is tagged +divergence to indicate what it's > about. > Also, bugs tagged divergence are not archived. So even after the bug > has been closed in Debian, the bug can continue to be used to discuss > the patch with upstream. > > Sounds good? Yes, it does. It could also be possible to add some automation because as the pseudo-header is in the patch, scripts could check that the list of pseudo-headers with a bugs.d.o URL matches the list of diversion bugs obtained via SOAP. Lintian doesn't currently do SOAP queries of the BTS but a QA script should be relatively easy to create. Maybe bts-link could be drafted in to provide some leverage over pseudo-headers mapping to an upstream bug tracker. Lintian could check that the pseudo-header exists. -- Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
