Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 13:22:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Trevor Johnson <trevor@jpj.net> To: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Alexander Langer <alex@FreeBSD.org>, Bill Fumerola <billf@chimesnet.com>, ports@FreeBSD.org, asami@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: New rules for naming patches Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.4.21.0007191259480.8615-100000@blues.jpj.net> In-Reply-To: <3975CBB2.CE38F8EB@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > should help make the history more comprehensible: the patches to a > > > particular source file will automatically go in the same ,v file as > > > patches are created and removed over the lifetime of a port. > > > > Only if you do something like > > patch-subdir1_subdir2_subdir3_file.name > > for each file, which is kinda overhead :) > > It may be even worse: patch-subdir1_subdir2_subdir3_file.name__foo__bar.c > > if the original file is name_foo_bar.c I've adapted the update-patches utility for FreeBSD. At http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=808513+815024+/usr/local/www/db/text/2000/freebsd-ports/20000702.freebsd-ports it's in the form of a patch that you can try. It puts in the names of subdirectories (think of files called "Makefile") but if a file has an underscore in its name, that doesn't get escaped in the manner you're hypothesizing. I suppose there's a little overhead in storing the longer filenames. Is that the overhead that you're concerned about? Again, I'm not saying this should be mandatory, so if you find that "patch-1" is easier for you to work with than "patch-programs_Xserver_hw_xfree86_input_joystick_Imakefile", or that the 50 bytes' difference is burdensome, I have no problem with it. -- Trevor Johnson http://jpj.net/~trevor/gpgkey.txt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSI.4.21.0007191259480.8615-100000>