On Fri, 2011-02-04 at 10:22 -0800, Akkana Peck wrote: > > it's 30s of editing. Arguably, my bad for not providing > > a patch; but again, I thought that would be a waste of time, because > > it would take longer for me to produce a patch, be sure that it was > > clean, and applied to the latest version of the package, and then for > > the developer to apply it, than for the developer simply to edit the > > man page themselves and produce a package patch. > > Including a patch often doesn't help anyway. That just leads to "can > you make a debdiff rather than a patch?" Make a debdiff, and it turns > out you should have made a PPA. Make a PPA, and there are further steps. > > After a while you realize it's a lot less work to maintain your > own copy of the package source locally than to keep trying to find > the magic steps to get the fix into Ubuntu.
I don't really consider a debdiff to be a necessary requirement for sponsoring a bug, especially if it is just dropping in a patch touching upstream code. What matters is that the patch is correct and of the required quality. It's not difficult for sponsors to create a package using a patch that a contributor has attached to a bug report (after all, the extra work is normally just creating a changelog entry, which isn't particularly hard). I hope your experience isn't the norm. If we are driving away contributors and turning away good patches because somebody hasn't provided a debdiff, then this makes me both sad and angry. Regards Chris
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss