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

From: FRIGN <>
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 21:54:51 +0100

On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 15:43:56 -0500
Matthew of Boswell <> wrote:

Hey Matthew,

> Regarding updating patches to 6.1... Should I list the fixed files with
> the version and the abbreviated commit? For example, some patches are
> listed as 6.1 but really are some git commit between 6.0 and 6.1:

These patches have been listed wrong and should be removed. We don't
maintain old patches.
What I'd do is copy the "real" 6.1-patch and call it
dwm-git-20151121-centeredmaster.diff and be done with it. If the git-head
moves along and it breaks in the future, people will know which patch
to change.

> So I was wondering if I should make the filename more explicit, so we
> can tell which patches have been updated. 5ed9c48 is the official
> tagged commit for dwm-6.1:
> This would make it a bit easier to see which patches are up to date.

No, this just complicates shit. Just use the dates and only use versions
for patches which apply against the given tag.

> Not picking on centeredmaster specifically, it just happens to be one
> of the patches I fixed and applied to my local repo yesterday. I'll put
> it on the wiki once I know how to name it.

The patch-situation is pretty diffuse atm. Look at the st-patches section[0],
which I've already taken care of.

> For this, I tend to just "ls -l" the patch directory on my hard drive
> to see the date that I downloaded it. Usually that's enough to see how
> old it is. If the patch didn't apply cleanly, the modified date would
> show when I fixed it =).

Just use the bloody dates instead of shortrefs.




Received on Sat Nov 21 2015 - 21:54:51 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Nov 21 2015 - 22:00:17 CET