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@xxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
