On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 11:10:07AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote: > On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 07:24:45AM -0500, Warren Turkal wrote: > > The patch numbers are not being properly followed. > > > > I have been submitting some patches upstream that are already fixed. They > > should be in a category not unlike patches from upstream so that we know > > that they can be deleted in the next version. I propose that 000 type > > patches should also include this class of patches such that 000 patches can > > just be deleted upon moving to a new upstream version. A patch of this type > > is 102, the sparc pci fix. I know that we may not know immediately when > > something like this is fixed, but when we know, it should be moved. > > > > Also, I have come across patches that are not labeled 900+ that are debian > > specific. I think that we need to promote these types of patches to the > > 900+ series patches. A couple patches of this type are 003 and 800, debian > > specific config patches. Please consider debian specificity when numbering > > patches. > > #003 should be merged upstream, so other people can build Debian packages; the > only part is where we do #define DebianMaintainer YES, or such - that's the only > part we should keep as Debian-specific. Ditto #800.
If you like, i can commit in some of the stuff. Especially the stuff like this which is mostly #ifdef protected could be a good candidate for a commit. I will see the opinion of upstream about this, and do the commits if it is ok, if you want that is. > As for #102 and the like, it's likely that the patch was developed by a > Debianite and sent to us, and we merged it and upstream later picked it up, so > the numbering became inaccurate (sort of) *after* the fact. Would be less if we sent more stuff upstream. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
