On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Dave Jones <davej@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Something the SuSE guys have done which I'm thinking we should adopt for our > patches (in the kernel at least), is a header at the top of each patch > detailing its upstream status, (and if not upstream, why not). A status header for all patches might be a good thing, if.... we can do it in such a way that we can establish some sort of process that periodically reviews the status headers for each patch and uses manpower to do the follow-up for older patches or patches without a status header. I would imagine it could be run in a similar way to how the Feature Process is run, with a Patch Wrangler (Team) who is(are) deputized to seek out maintainers when updates concern patches status are needed. Did you also intend to draw a line in the sand concerning the age of a patch? If a patch is a certain age it automatically needs more frequent status updates? Sort of like when you reach a certain age and you need to go in for a colonoscopy on a regular basis? -jef _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
