On Sun, 21 Jun 2009, Raphael Geissert wrote: > > Description (required) > Why not simply consider all the free-form text the description? that would > make all the current patches with a comment insta DEP3-compliant.
Done, but that's a recommendatino for the parser. Note that it's not DEP3-compliant since the Origin field is required. > > Origin (required) > Making this field mandatory doesn't sound like a good idea to me, as it > already clashes a bit with the forwarded and author fields. If the Origin > is upstream, then it doesn't need to be forwarded; and it doesn't cope very > well with the idea of patches by some John Doe user. I believe it's important to be able to know where the patch came from. I don't agree that it clashes with other optional fields, when it clashes the optional field can precisely be avoided... > > Bug-<Vendor> or Bug (optional) > Like Paul Wise already said: it would be better to have a single field where > the urls to the bug trackers can be specified. It doesn't only make it > easier to find the final url, but it also requires zero extra > maintenance/updates on the parsing tools just to know about another bug > tracker. Paul did not say that, he simply told that he preferred URLs instead of bug numbers. Are you saying that you don't want Bug-<Vendor> but only Bug without any requirement to indicate the vendor ? I think it would be bad because it would not allow to differentiate the upstream bug url from the others. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Contribuez à Debian et gagnez un cahier de l'admin Debian Lenny : http://www.ouaza.com/wp/2009/03/02/contribuer-a-debian-gagner-un-livre/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
