On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 10:07 PM, Anselm R Garbe <garbeam_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> On 16 June 2016 at 16:15, FRIGN <dev_AT_frign.de> wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 07:27:58 +0200
>> Anselm R Garbe <garbeam_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I would suggest to use: <project>-<patch title>-<short git hash>-<YYMMDD>.patch
>>
>> st-externalpipe-ea87104-160423.patch
>>
>
> Well, fair enough. My final suggestion is then:
>
> <project>-<patch title>-<YYYYMMDD>-<short hash>.patch
This is inconsistent with the format used for patches against release versions,
in that the project version and patch title are intermixed. Right now for
patches against releases:
<project>-<version>-<patch_title>.diff
I think this is fine for patches against release versions.
For patches against other things I would revise your proposed format to:
<project>-<YYYYMMDD>-<short hash>-<patch title>.diff
The hash is worth including to avoid possible confusion when there are
multiple commits on a single day or devs who forget to pull.
Alternately the patch title could be put in front:
<patch_title>-<project>-<version>.diff
<patch_title>-<project>-<YYYYMMDD>-<short hash>.diff
I've just written a script that checks all the patches for correct names and
successful application to the specified commit. As soon as the format is
completely agreed I'll send it to this list.
Britton
Received on Fri Jun 17 2016 - 20:01:43 CEST