Regarding updating patches to 6.1... Should I list the fixed files with the version and the abbreviated commit? For example, some patches are listed as 6.1 but really are some git commit between 6.0 and 6.1:
dwm-6.1-centeredmaster.diff So I was wondering if I should make the filename more explicit, so we can tell which patches have been updated. 5ed9c48 is the official tagged commit for dwm-6.1: dwm-6.1-5ed9c48-centeredmaster.diff So on the wiki, it would look like this: dwm-6.1-5ed9c48-centeredmaster.diff (2015-11-21) This would make it a bit easier to see which patches are up to date. Or should I just replace the "6.1"-named patches with correct ones with the same name? Not picking on centeredmaster specifically, it just happens to be one of the patches I fixed and applied to my local repo yesterday. I'll put it on the wiki once I know how to name it. David Phillips wrote: > This would solve my above problem, but introduce one of not having the > date as readily available once the patch and wiki are separated. For > example, I accumulate various versions of patches locally, and knowing > which ones I can remove will get interesting/slow with only refs. For this, I tend to just "ls -l" the patch directory on my hard drive to see the date that I downloaded it. Usually that's enough to see how old it is. If the patch didn't apply cleanly, the modified date would show when I fixed it =). -- Matt Boswell
