From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Korsgaard Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2017 08:43:05 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] docs: update DEVELOPERS modification process In-Reply-To: <20171104231427.3b3f436a@windsurf> (Thomas Petazzoni's message of "Sat, 4 Nov 2017 23:14:27 +0100") References: <20171103211053.20886-1-joseph.kogut@gmail.com> <20171104185305.5vkjjg6iwrhctcis@tarshish> <20171104231427.3b3f436a@windsurf> Message-ID: <87y3nl2mt2.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net >>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Petazzoni writes: Hi, >> Not sure about "or modifying". Mixing a DEVELOPERS update into a random >> package update does not always make sense. The manual only refers to new >> packages/boards. I suggest to drop this sentence entirely, and leave the >> details for the manual. > Joseph is modifying the manual here, so I'm not sure what your last > sentence means. > 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. -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard