Dne 14. 01. 25 v 16:21 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a):
On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 11:36:59AM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:Hi, Is there any convention for naming patches? I mildly remember that there used to be some guideline suggesting form such as `pagkage-name-version-description-of-patch.patch`. But I was not able to find this codified in guidelines.Coordinated naming of patches (and sources, and other files) used to matter when people dumped them in a shared directory like ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES/.
Yes, I remember something like this was the reason. But not sure if this was just verbally shared knowledge or if there was any official guideline.
I really really hope nobody does that anymore.
I have no hopes ;)
When files are stored in individual directories, in the usual dist-git layout, then the naming is up to the maintainers. In particular, NNNN-description-with-dashes.patch is often used, since this is what 'git format-patch' generates. But there is no need for guidlines to prescribe any naming.
But the opposite guideline, such as "there is no official patch naming convention, feel free to use whatever works for you" would also help 😇
Vít
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
