Re: Patching naming scheme
On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 06:35:16PM -0500, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> Hi! Some time ago when we were doing the switch to quilt, we'd talked
> about renaming the patches to something sensible. I proposed the
> following naming scheme, which didn't receive any comments. I'm
> proposing it one more time, and will start moving us towards it if I
> hear nothing in, say, a week:
Hi Jeff,
> ## {local|branch|cvs|submitted}-{ARCH|all}-{"Description}"
> ## Branch means commited in the upstream branch.
> ## CVS means committed in the upstream trunk.
> ## Submitted means we're hopeful that it will go in.
> ## Local means that it's not going upstream.
> ## The goal is to get all patches to "Branch". Patches should be split
> by
> ## arch so that it's easy to send just the relevant bits to various
> ## arch maintainers if needed.
When I first read your message weeks ago, I did not like it much, mostly
because of the patch status being part of its filename. I changed my
mind, and believe now that your suggestion makes a lot of sense.
> I find this scheme useful because I can tell at a glance which patches
> are ones that are ours to carry forward, and which ones I need to work
> on to get upstream. I can also pretty clearly see how much out of sync
> a given arch is from upstream.
>
> and here's a sampling of how the patches look once renamed:
> ## Branch:
> ## CVS:
> cvs-all-tlscrash
> cvs-all-strxfrm
The 2nd field could be {ARCH|all|any} instead of {ARCH|all}. The
rationale is that porters should have a look at {ARCH|any} whereas
I am mostly interested in 'all' patches. The difference between
'all' and 'any' could be that the latter touches several architecture
dependent files, whereas the former only modifies architecture
independent files.
What about putting patches in subdirectories? For instance
## {ARCH|all|any}/{local|branch|cvs|submitted}-"Description"
Denis
Reply to: