r4550 - people/horms/patch_notes/cve

[Dann Frazier]

Author: dannf
Date: 2005-10-19 18:02:33 +0000 (Wed, 19 Oct 2005)
New Revision: 4550

Added:
   people/horms/patch_notes/cve/00boilerplate
Log:
a partial boilerplate to use for tracking; horms, micah: please take a look

Added: people/horms/patch_notes/cve/00boilerplate
===================================================================
--- people/horms/patch_notes/cve/00boilerplate	2005-10-19 17:48:34 UTC (rev 4549)
+++ people/horms/patch_notes/cve/00boilerplate	2005-10-19 18:02:33 UTC (rev 4550)
@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+A boilerplate for tracking the status of patches across Debian Kernel trees.
+dannf> should anything go above this line?
+dannf> should we use debian-style rfc822 for this for machine readability?
+======================================================
+Candidate: (##NEEDED## | CAN-XXXX-XXXX | N/A)
+URL: dannf> What makes a URL different than a Reference?  Is it always mitre's?
+Reference: CONFIRM:##URL## dannf> what does CONFIRM mean?
+Reference: MISC:##URL## dannf> what does MISC mean?
+
+Description: ##NEEDED## dannf> can a single description work for the cve,
+                        dannf> the changelog, and the DSA?
+                        dannf> should this use debian/control style multiline?
+                        dannf> should we have a short description?
+upstream: comma separated versions(s) of upstream kernel that first included this patch
+2.6.13: (pending|released|already included|N/A)(backported)?(patch-name-used.diff)?
+2.6.12: (added to svn|released)(backported)?(patch-name-used.diff)?
+2.6.8-sarge: (added to svn|released)(backported)?(patch-name-used.diff)?
+...
+one line for each currently maintained tree
+
+dannf> what does backported mean?  the patch didn't apply & needed munging,
+dannf> or just that we used a patch intended for a newer tree, that may have
+dannf> applied cleanly?