On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 01:07:03PM +0200, FRIGN wrote:
>On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 17:28:53 -0800
>Britton Kerin <britton.kerin_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Hey Britton,
>
>> The -6.1- substring seems to imply that these patches are intended to
>> apply cleanly to version 6.1, but the date strings that are appended
>> suggest that maybe they aren't. And they don't (for these two at
>> least).
>>
>> How is this supposed to work?
>>
>> I could make a script to test the patches again the given version if
>> -6.1- or something is included.
>
>this is all too complex, as most people who submit patches here lack
>diligence:
>Patches with versions should apply to the released versions. Everything
>upstream should be called "git" and the date of patch release.
>It's the task of the patch maintainer/submitter to rebase his patches
>accordingly to each release, which is not difficult as dwm has very
>slow releases.
>Say, I submit a patch today to give dwm a HAL-9000 color scheme and
>call it
> dwm-hal-6.1.patch
> dwm-hal-git-2016-06-14.patch
>applying to both the 6.1 release version (always the latest release
>for patches) and the git HEAD respectively.
>
>Now, let's assume I go abroad to North Korea or something, and nobody
>gives a shit about the patch (Most of the dwm patches in the wiki are
>dead, I did the cleanup for st already, but dwm is still pending).
>Now, let's say we release 6.2 and 6.3 before I return. So, now, when
>I check back in in 2018, what I should do is create the following
>patches:
> dwm-hal-6.2.patch
> dwm-hal-6.3.patch
> dwm-hal-git-2018-05-13.patch
>And that's it! :D
>
>
>TL;DR
>There are 3 rules here that we should abide to:
> 1) If you update the patch against git HEAD, remove the old
> git-patch. There should always be one latest git patch.
> People who really need an older git patch can check the
> suckless-wiki git-logs.
> 2) If you publish a new patch, create 2 versions: for
> the latest release and for git HEAD (even if they're
> the same)
> 3) Maintaining a patch involves both creating new patches
> for future tags and updating the git-patch as often
> as necessary so it's easy enough to use.
> An exception is when a feature pulled into mainline
> makes the patch superfluous.
>
>A point of debate for me really is when it comes to those super-
>fluous patches. Should we remove them or provide them for older
>versions of dwm?
>In my opinion, there is no reason for this legacy stuff. The
>dwm-patch section is already cramped enough, a cleanup would
>be pretty helpful.
>What do you guys think?
Hi, FRIGN
I suggest using the same syntax as in st which is well maintained, eg:
st-scrollback.diff
st-git-20151217-scrollback.diff
Talking stuff here won't change much, just change suckless.org/wiki.md
so that most of the people can see it.
--
Do what you like, like what you do. -- Pickfire
Received on Wed Jun 15 2016 - 13:21:58 CEST