On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 12:43:01PM +0100, Markus Teich wrote:
Jack L. Frost wrote:
Agreed that the way patches are being named right now is confusing. Dates
and/or refs in the name would be very much appreciated.
Use shortrefs for the filename, but use dates on the wikipage or at least
annotate the hyperlink with the date.
Then you can quickly see how old a patch is and estimate how much work it would
be to update it to the current HEAD. Also thanks to the shortref in the filename
you can easily find the commit where it definitely worked to have a starting
point for bisection if there are any problems after updating the patch to
current HEAD.
Yeah, I think using the date format would raise many objects.
The shortref can check the date anyway. I think it is best that the
filename to be simple:
dwm-abcde930-name.diff
And we put the date (and maybe size) after the file like this:
dwm-abcde930-name.diff (20K) (2015-02-29)
Reasons not to use date: There can be several commits a day.
--
_____________________________________
< Do what you like, like what you do. >
-------------------------------------
\ ^__^
\ (oo)\_______
(__)\ )\/\
||----w |
|| ||
