Re: Using a patch naming convention
Rene Mayorga dijo [Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 11:05:18PM -0600]:
> Hello,
>
> Working on some other teams I notice a nice and interesting naming
> convention to patch names[0]
>
> The idea is to stand a status of the patch using a name convention, with
> status I mean:
> 1) Patch is Debian specific and there is no need to send it to upstream
> 2) Patch needs to be send to upstream
> 3) Patch is already sent, and needs to be removed on the next release if is
> included.
> This is my personal approach, based on[0]
>
> Each point on this can have then a prefix on the name that tell to everyone the
> state of the patch
> like 00X_foo_bar.patch for option 1,
> 10X_bleh.patch for option 2
> and 20X_baz.patch for option 3
> (...)
I agree with Damyan - Prefixing with numbers does not show much to
most people - Using text-based names is always more descriptive
(although Jonas' logic regarding unfuzzing is interesting).
Now, while the difference between your 1 and 2 is real, the difference
between 2 and 3 is not necessarily so - When I come up with a patch, I
might first apply it in my packaging and later report the bug, or the
other way around. Or upstream might use a different logic for the same
effect, or whatever.
I was thinking whether including the CPAN or Debian bug number in the
patches' - But in any case, I think it's better to include any such
details in the patch preamble.
Greetings,
--
Gunnar Wolf - gwolf@gwolf.org - (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244
PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23
Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973 F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF
Reply to: