From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2017 09:55:44 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] docs: update DEVELOPERS modification process In-Reply-To: <87y3nl2mt2.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> References: <20171103211053.20886-1-joseph.kogut@gmail.com> <20171104185305.5vkjjg6iwrhctcis@tarshish> <20171104231427.3b3f436a@windsurf> <87y3nl2mt2.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> Message-ID: <20171105095544.2b045a56@windsurf> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, On Sun, 05 Nov 2017 08:43:05 +0100, Peter Korsgaard wrote: > > However, I agree that doing the DEVELOPERS change in a patch just > > modifying the package is perhaps not desirable. When adding a new > > package, yes, definitely, the DEVELOPERS entry should be added as part > > of the same patch. However, when a package is being modified, that's a > > different story, and the package change should be in a separate patch > > than the DEVELOPERS addition. > > I'm not sure it really matters much. A package change with a > modification of DEVELOPERS would most likely be for a version bump of an > unmaintained package where the person bumping wants to take over > ownership, or similar. > > I don't think it is a problem to update DEVELOPERS together with the > package in such cases, but keeping it separately is also fine. Agreed. Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com