On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 05:01:08PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > What if we just decide that changes made to upstream sources[1] qualify > as a bug? A change might be a bug in upstream, or in the debianisation, > or in Debian for requiring the change. But just call it a bug. > Everything else follows from that quite naturally.. > > The bug can be tracked, with a patch, in our BTS. The bug can be > forwarded upstream as the patch is sent upstream. A tag "divergence" can > be used to query for all such bugs, or to sort such bugs out of the way. > > Other tags and BTS data can be used if desired. For example, "divergence > fixed-upstream", "divergence wontfix", "divergence help". Versioning > information can be used to track when an upstream version resolves the > divergence. Discussion and updated patches can be CCed to the bug log. > > The BTS could be enhanced to allow opening a bug and forwarding it > upstream in a single message. (IIRC currently, it takes two). This would > allow a very simple workflow where a DD makes a change to a package, > generates a patch, and sends it upstream while also recording the > divergence in the BTS. (...)
The BTS would also need something to make it easier to spot patches in a bug. Patch tracking is one of the few things bugzilla is not bad at, for instance. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]