Re: proposal: allow Upstream-Status: Inactive-Upstream in patches

Richard Purdie

On Sat, 2021-12-11 at 06:12 -0800, akuster808 wrote:

On 12/10/21 2:47 AM, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 at 18:05, Richard Purdie
<mailto:richard.purdie@...>> wrote:

I'm in favour of adding the new category and I agree some kind of
dates in the
[reason] space would be nice to have.

For the purposes of a patch upstream, the last commit date is much
important than a release. I don't think this needs to be machine
readable as a
definition, it is better we have the appropriate info. Year is
probably as much
as we need since inactive software is usually measured in years.

Some upstreams are so old that they pre-date the 'git era' and
tarballs are all there is. I guess either last commit or last release
is ok, or both where possible. Dates can be full or can be shortened
to YYYYMM or YYYY where needed.

Something like:
Upstream-Status: Inactive-Upstream [lastcommit: 2019, lastrelease: 2015]
What about kernels? If the version this patch is against is EOL but a
similar form was accepted in a later version , how would that play out here?
Patch status tends to only really make the most sense on the development code
branches and you couldn't say the kernel was inactive. Wouldn't the state be
"Backport" in that case anyway?



Join { to automatically receive all group messages.