Hi,
I'd like to change the filenames of patch files, since the naming
scheme patch-[a-z][a-z] doesn't give me enough expressiveness for
efficient work.
We already had a discussion about this topic in June and July 2004:
http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-pkg/2004/06/
http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-pkg/2004/07/
([change request] pattern for patch filenames)
The discussion revealed that there are some different opinions of
how patch files should be named, but arguments for a specific
scheme were rare, and suddently the discussion ended. We had these
suggestions:
1. Keep everything as is (patch-[a-z][a-z], one patched file per
patch):
[pro] simple, easy, and it works.
[pro] short filenames, viewable even on small screens.
[pro] the order in which the patches are applied doesn't matter.
[con] CVS history contains comments on many unrelated patches.
2. Filename based on the patched file, one patched file per patch:
[pro] patch filename shows which file is patched.
[pro] the order in which the patches are applied doesn't matter.
[pro] CVS history contains only changes to this particular file.
[con] the name of the patched file occurs three times: in the
filename, in the "---" line, in the "+++" line (redundancy).
[con] there's a naming scheme to be learnt
3. Group functional changes into one patch file:
[pro] the patch can be easily removed once the problem has been
fixed upstream.
[con] a file may be patched by multiple patches. The order in which
the patches are applied becomes important.
I'd like to establish variant 2. (I don't want to displace variant
1, I just want to be allowed to use variant 2 for packages I
maintain.) Other opinions?