On Wed, 2008-04-23 at 16:41 -0400, Colin Walters wrote: > 2008/4/23 Brian Pepple <bpepple@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > > > 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 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
