From: Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be>
To: buildroot@busybox.net
Subject: [Buildroot] RFC: package patching
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 19:27:41 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201111181927.41880.arnout@mind.be> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20111117224211.0e793a0b@skate>
On Thursday 17 November 2011 21:42:11 Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Having a comment inside a patch seems to be enough. Sometimes when the
> patch is pushed upstream, it's merged in the Git repo of the upstream
> project, but there isn't yet a release with the modification, so it
> would be hard to known which "nextversion" the patch will be in.
Most projects have a single trunk, so you can predict that a patch in trunk will appear in the next release. Even if a project has a more complex release scheme, it will typically have branches. The only issue could be that you don't know if it will be 1.9 or 2.0, but then tagging it as 1.9 is a safe bet.
I find a release number tag much more useful than e.g. a commit ID. With the commit ID, it is still pretty difficult to find out if a partical release contains it.
Oh, and patches which have not (yet) been accepted upstream should not be tagged.
Anyway, as a version bumper, I would use that tag just as a hint.
> We already have comments in patches, those comments can carry the
> upstream status of the patch, which is also compatible with what we
> intend to do with the send-patches.org project.
Is there going to be a tag for it, similar to Reviewed-by?
Regards,
Arnout
--
Arnout Vandecappelle arnout at mind be
Senior Embedded Software Architect +32-16-286540
Essensium/Mind http://www.mind.be
G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven
LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle
GPG fingerprint: 31BB CF53 8660 6F88 345D 54CC A836 5879 20D7 CF43
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-11-18 19:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-11-15 8:33 [Buildroot] RFC: package patching Thomas De Schampheleire
2011-11-15 8:45 ` Peter Korsgaard
2011-11-15 19:14 ` Arnout Vandecappelle
2011-11-15 21:28 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2011-11-16 6:18 ` Sergey Naumov
2011-11-16 6:50 ` Thomas De Schampheleire
2011-11-16 6:44 ` Thomas De Schampheleire
2011-11-16 18:03 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2011-11-17 13:05 ` Thomas De Schampheleire
2011-11-17 21:23 ` Arnout Vandecappelle
2011-11-17 21:42 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2011-11-18 6:53 ` Thomas De Schampheleire
2011-11-18 7:05 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2011-11-18 7:34 ` Peter Korsgaard
2011-11-18 9:26 ` Thomas De Schampheleire
2011-11-18 12:24 ` Michael S. Zick
2011-11-18 19:44 ` Arnout Vandecappelle
2011-11-18 19:27 ` Arnout Vandecappelle [this message]
2011-11-19 9:26 ` Bjørn Forsman
2011-11-19 12:13 ` Arnout Vandecappelle
2011-11-18 16:41 ` Thomas Petazzoni
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201111181927.41880.arnout@mind.be \
--to=arnout@mind.be \
--cc=buildroot@busybox.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox