Bug#1028503: UDD: Unknown "yes" value for Forwarded field in patch metadata

2023-02-15 Thread Guillem Jover
Hi! On Sun, 2023-01-15 at 21:12:53 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > I'm wondering why diverge from the patch metadata guidelines? If there's > > a desire to change the field semantics, perhaps it would be better to > > change the guidelines instead? :) > >ยท > > But given this interchange, perhaps

Bug#1028503: UDD: Unknown "yes" value for Forwarded field in patch metadata

2023-01-16 Thread Paul Wise
On Sat, 2023-01-14 at 18:41 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > I otherwise do not know how we can mark patches as forwarded when > for example you send them directly to upstream via email or to a mailing > list that has no public archive or similar. Just as you can mark a BTS bug as forwarded to an em

Bug#1028503: UDD: Unknown "yes" value for Forwarded field in patch metadata

2023-01-15 Thread Lucas Nussbaum
Hi Guillem, > I'm wondering why diverge from the patch metadata guidelines? If there's > a desire to change the field semantics, perhaps it would be better to > change the guidelines instead? :) > > But given this interchange, perhaps we should try to make it more > clear or explicit about some o

Bug#1028503: UDD: Unknown "yes" value for Forwarded field in patch metadata

2023-01-14 Thread Mattia Rizzolo
On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 12:05:51PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > The problem I have is that the 'Bug' header is often misused, and used > for the Debian bug instead of the upstream bug. But I could special-case > that. I wonder if we should have lintian flag this. Something like warn if Bug point

Bug#1028503: UDD: Unknown "yes" value for Forwarded field in patch metadata

2023-01-14 Thread Guillem Jover
On Thu, 2023-01-12 at 12:05:51 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 12/01/23 at 01:57 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > > I just noticed though that it does > > not recognize a "yes" value for the Forwarded field, while the > > "Patch Tagging Guidelines" has this to say about it: > > > > * Forwarded (o

Bug#1028503: UDD: Unknown "yes" value for Forwarded field in patch metadata

2023-01-12 Thread Lucas Nussbaum
Hi, On 12/01/23 at 01:57 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > Hi! > > The new patch data is great, thanks! Thanks! > I just noticed though that it does > not recognize a "yes" value for the Forwarded field, while the > "Patch Tagging Guidelines" has this to say about it: > > * Forwarded (optional)

Bug#1028503: UDD: Unknown "yes" value for Forwarded field in patch metadata

2023-01-11 Thread Guillem Jover
Package: qa.debian.org Severity: normal User: qa.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: udd Hi! The new patch data is great, thanks! I just noticed though that it does not recognize a "yes" value for the Forwarded field, while the "Patch Tagging Guidelines" has this to say about it: * Forwar