On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 00:28:45 +1300
David Phillips <dbphillipsnz_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
Hey David,
> > 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.
the patch section is a huge mess. I spent some time a while ago to clean
up the st-patches section[0] and I brought the following conventions:
st-VER-NAME.diff for release patches (on the git tag)
st-git-YYYYMMDD-NAME.diff for git-patches
The date-format works pretty well, given you see directly how old the
patch is. Shortrefs don't allow this, if there has only been one patch
on the codebase the current shortref changes and digging around the
git log to find the shortref is too cumbersome.
The date on the other hand gives a good heuristic, and as this
convention has already been enforced on the st-patches, I'll continue
with it with the other patches as well.
To keep the current workload low, I'd be very strict with new patches
hitting the repository and not apply them until the "convention" has
been fixed.
Additionally, the existing patches can be morphed to the new format
when there is time in the future. But tbh, there are more important
projects for me currently that need my attention.
Cheers
FRIGN
[0]:
http://st.suckless.org/patches/
--
FRIGN <dev_AT_frign.de>
Received on Mon Nov 09 2015 - 14:53:52 CET