patch naming scheme.

[Jarod Wilson]

On Friday 10 October 2008 21:23:34 Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 15:01 -0400, 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?
>
> The linux-2.6 thing groups nicely for ls, but make tab complete a waste
> of time, and is pretty pointless as you say.
>
> nvidia-agp I apologise for, it just came with that name from upstream, I
> meant to rename it to at least agp-nvidia.
>
> I don't suppose we could use a subdirectory called patches if we want to
> keep ls clean.. this being the 21st century :)

I vaguely recall trying a test implementation of this at one point, and if I 
recall correctly, it made rpm very unhappy. However, its been a while, maybe 
this is doable with the latest rpm and/or maybe my recollections are wrong. A 
patches subdir would certainly clean things up considerably, and then I think 
a constant patch name prefix matters a lot less (certainly still could stand 
to apply some standard formula to naming, of course, but it wouldn't impact 
tab completion near as much anymore).

-- 
Jarod Wilson
jarod at redhat.com