Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] Patches in spells

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: David Kowis <dkowis AT shlrm.org>
  • To: Flavien Bridault <vlaaad AT sourcemage.org>
  • Cc: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] Patches in spells
  • Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 07:53:53 -0500

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Flavien Bridault wrote:
> I tried to sum up all the discussion, but it is possible I forgot
> something. Obviously, feel free to modify/comment, etc...
>
> [0] http://wiki.sourcemage.org/Grimoire_Patches


# Upstream bug about the patch

Not all patches will have upstream bugs. For example, the VDA patch for
postfix doesn't have an upstream bug, because it's a feature patch. Is
this upstream bug thing required? or is it just an extra field? I'm all
for putting it in there if there really is an upstream bug, however, I'm
not sure it should be required.

- --
David Kowis

ISO Team Lead - www.sourcemage.org
Source Mage GNU/Linux

Progress isn't made by early risers. It's made by lazy men trying to
find easier ways to do something.
- Robert Heinlein
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
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=8eR3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page