On 15 June 2016 at 19:45, FRIGN <dev_AT_frign.de> wrote:
> we also had this discussion already. The point here is: using the date of
> the "update" is the best and easiest heuristic. you see with one look
> if a git-patch is relatively old or new.
I would suggest to use: <project>-<patch title>-<short git hash>-<YYMMDD>.patch
Replacing the "git" portion with the short hash makes it much more
accurate to what git version the patch applies to.
Also condensing the date to skip the century is a good idea in the
year 2016. Still 84 years to come without a century problem of patch
file names.
I would even go that far to skip the date completely. It doesn't
really tell you much. If someone bothers of the age of a patch, then
you can always check git with the hash.
-Anselm
Received on Thu Jun 16 2016 - 07:27:58 CEST