On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Call that latter one "upstream status. We could perhaps make that a >> requirement of the git commit log, or part of the patch itself in a >> specific format. I've been trying to do this kind of ad hoc by >> keeping PatchList.txt up to date in f20 and rawhide, but I have to >> admit it kind of sucks. Having it be part of the patch file itself >> might make things easier. > > I wondered where the information for that email came from, I've never > notice the PatchList.txt file before. If it's not easy to add the It didn't come from PatchList.txt. It came from me tracking every patch down every month and giving the reasoning. PatchList.txt was updated after the last report I sent out to try and avoid having to redo that every time. Except it's easy to forget to update PatchList.txt. > information to the patches maybe the information could be added as > comments with the patch lines, I know this adds more size to an > already large .spec file but at least all the information is in the > one place. I'd prefer to keep it in the patch file itself (not PatchList.txt, but as fields in the acutal .patch file). I'll think up what I'd like to see and post an example format for discussion. Kyle's idea of automating the patch addition to kernel.spec seems good. josh _______________________________________________ kernel mailing list kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel
