PatchUpstreamStatus [was Re: Plan for tomorrows (20080424) FESCO meeting]

[Mark McLoughlin]

On Wed, 2008-04-23 at 16:41 -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> 2008/4/23 Brian Pepple <bpepple at fedoraproject.org>:
> >
> >  You want something to be discussed? Send a note to the list in reply to
> >  this mail and I'll add it to the schedule.  You can also propose topics
> >  in the meeting while it is in the "Free discussion around Fedora" phase.
> 
> Hi, I'd like to propose:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/PatchUpstreamStatus

It's nice to have some recommendations along those lines alright.

Another common way is to include details in the patch itself[1], e.g.
including the full changelog entry by doing git-show, hg export, or
whatever

A spec file comment per patch would be burdensome where there are lots
of patches - e.g. see kernel-xen-2.6/devel at the moment

Cheers,
Mark.

[1] - Actually, there's a thought - one reason to not include details in
the patch itself is that it's easy to lose it when you re-diff a patch
because you have to do e.g.

  $> head -10 foo-fix-bar.patch > t.tmp
  $> gendiff foo-1.2.3 .fix-bar >> t.tmp
  $> mv t.tmp foo-fix-bar.patch

but it'd be much nicer to be able to just do:

  $> gendiff foo-1.2.3 .fix-bar foo-fix-bar.patch

and have the patch header retained. I'll add that to #119697