patch naming scheme.

[Dave Jones]

On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 05:55:50PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
 > On Friday 10 October 2008 17:27:00 Chris Snook wrote:
 > > Dave Jones wrote:
 > > > For a while, diffs in the Fedora kernel have followed the form
 > > >
 > > > linux-2.6-*.patch
 > > >
 > > > Then, we started seeing some git snapshots show up as
 > > >
 > > > git-*.diff
 > > >
 > > > and lately, everything seems to have gone bananas, with no
 > > > particular scheme at all..
 > > >
 > > > nvidia-agp.patch, percpu_counter_sum_cleanup.patch, xfs-barrier-fix.patch
 > > > etc etc.
 > > >
 > > > Maybe I'm being overly anal.  The linux-2.6- prefix is kind of pointless
 > > > (given that duh, they're all going to be against Linux 2.6), but it
 > > > does group things nicely in an ls output if nothing else.
 > > >
 > > > So, what are peoples thoughts on this?
 > > >
 > > > 	Dave
 > >
 > > If we'd prefix them with the source package name, in this case "kernel", it
 > > would make it a lot easier to find things in /usr/src/redhat/SOURCES when
 > > we've got SRPMs from different packages installed.  We should probably
 > > avoid using names that refer to a specific upstream version, because the
 > > name becomes misleading once we rebase.  When there's a suitable upstream
 > > patch name, like the names Andrew Morton uses in -mm, we should probably
 > > use those (perhaps prepended with kernel-) to make it clear what it
 > > corresponds to upstream.
 > 
 > Yeah, I'd be happy with <pkgname>-<tree id>-<description>.patch, omitting the 
 > tree id portion if there isn't one, or some variant thereof. Being able to do 
 > an 'ls kernel*.patch' is definitely useful.

kernel-* is sacred.  Tab completion ftw. :)

	Dave

-- 
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk