Jarod Wilson wrote:
On Friday 10 October 2008 20:37:24 Dave Jones wrote:
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. :)
Ah, good point, s/kernel/linux/ then maybe?
Works for me, as long as we enforce it universally. If we end up with a mix of linux- and linux-2.6-, it'll just be even more of a PITA.
-- Chris