[dev] Patch naming on the wiki [corrected list]

From: David Phillips <dbphillipsnz_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 00:28:45 +1300

On 10/11/2015, David Phillips <dbphillipsnz_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> Just wondering what the rest of the community reckons about an issue
> that popped up briefly on IRC.
> I'll start with an example: some patches, for a long time, have been
> named `dwm-6.1-fibwibble.diff`—long before dwm-6.1 was released. When
> I was more of a newbie, this was confusing. Now, though, I do
> understand that it was really just a patch against master "in
> anticipation" of the next version/tag.
> It all seems fine before this version is released, because "everyone
> knows 6.1 isn't out yet," so it "must be a patch against master." It
> gets confusing though, because some patches stop being updated to the
> latest master, so when the new version actually arrives, these patches
> which look like they will apply, whereas they are actually patches
> against some old ref, perhaps from months or years ago
> What I'm proposing, or rather asking for the community opinion on, is
> whether or not we continue naming (what are really git master) patches
> like this.
> What I propose is what a lot of patches already use, which is:
> * foo-[short commit hash].diff
> * foo-YYYYMMDD.diff
> * foo-YYYY-MM-DD.diff
> or a combination/mish-mash of the above.
> (It might be good to settle on the (standard) YYYY-MM-DD rather than
> YYYYMMDD in this discussion as well)
> What do you all think?

I should amend my comment about date formats, it would appear I was
incorrect in implying YYYYMMDD is non-standard. But it might still be
nice to settle on one or the other.
Received on Mon Nov 09 2015 - 12:28:45 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Mon Nov 09 2015 - 12:36:08 CET