patch naming scheme.

[Jarod Wilson]

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.

-- 
Jarod Wilson
jarod at redhat.com