tech-pkg archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: suggested pkglint change: error on missing comment for patch

Larson, Timothy E. wrote:

> that's filed a patch and not fed it upstream.  If pkgsrc did it
> automatically, using UPSTREAM_MAINTAINER email or some such, it would
> relieve lots of duplicate work.  If I were the upstream for some project,

You cannot do that automagically without annoying many (maybe even most)
upstream maintainers. We have a mix of
  - pkgsrc-only patches
  - quick patches to make the package compile but unsuitable for
    inclusion upstream
  - patches suitable for integration upstream 

Only the last category could be submitted upstream automatically but how
do you identify them? And even if they could be identified, can you
explain their purpose without meaningful comments or CVS log messages
which way too many of our patches do not have at the moment?

Getting patches integrated is time consuming work and you must be able
to explain the reason for your patch and often adapt it to the upstream
project's wishes. I'm sorry, but you I think you should forget the term
"automatic feedback" in this context.


Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index