Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 21:44:07 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org> To: ports-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/shells/bash1/files patch-af patch-am patch-an patch-ao patch-ap patch-aq patch-ar patch-as patch-at patch-builtins-common.c patch-builtins-common.h patch-error.c patch-error.h patch-print_cmd.c patch-readline-display.c ... Message-ID: <20030901044407.GA91432@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <20030831224239.GA49662@wombat.localnet> References: <200308310808.h7V88mIT023746@repoman.freebsd.org> <20030831224239.GA49662@wombat.localnet>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 06:42:39PM -0400, Michael Edenfield wrote: > * David E. O'Brien <obrien@FreeBSD.org> [030831 04:06]: > > Log: > > Fix build on -current (varargs -> stdarg) > > [don't propagate the poorly named patch files from the PR] ... > Is is preferred not to name patches patch-aa? And if so why are there > so many of those in the ports tree already? Just wanted to know before > I go do any more of these. The old style was to name them patch-[a-z][a-z]. Some of us didn't think that made sense so we used patch-[:numbers:][:numbers:]. When some of the ports I maintained had 15 patches, I then started using patch-<name_of_file_being_patched>, with a directory name added when necessary. This took off, but has happened in different forms. I still prefer the shortest patch filename that helps the maintainer deal with all the patches. It looses history to delete patches with older style names and recreate them under new names -- so a mass patch file renaming has never (and should never) take place. In the end it is still up to the maintainer and/or committer what to name the patches. Since I have an interest in the Bash shell, I wanted new patches to be more sainly named. -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030901044407.GA91432>