patch naming scheme.

[Jarod Wilson]

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?

-- 
Jarod Wilson
jarod at redhat.com