On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 01:07:03PM +0200, FRIGN wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 17:28:53 -0800
Britton Kerin <britton.ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey Britton,
The -6.1- substring seems to imply that these patches are intended to
apply cleanly to version 6.1, but the date strings that are appended
suggest that maybe they aren't. And they don't (for these two at
least).
How is this supposed to work?
I could make a script to test the patches again the given version if
-6.1- or something is included.
this is all too complex, as most people who submit patches here lack
diligence:
Patches with versions should apply to the released versions. Everything
upstream should be called "git" and the date of patch release.
It's the task of the patch maintainer/submitter to rebase his patches
accordingly to each release, which is not difficult as dwm has very
slow releases.
Say, I submit a patch today to give dwm a HAL-9000 color scheme and
call it
dwm-hal-6.1.patch
dwm-hal-git-2016-06-14.patch
applying to both the 6.1 release version (always the latest release
for patches) and the git HEAD respectively.
Now, let's assume I go abroad to North Korea or something, and nobody
gives a shit about the patch (Most of the dwm patches in the wiki are
dead, I did the cleanup for st already, but dwm is still pending).
Now, let's say we release 6.2 and 6.3 before I return. So, now, when
I check back in in 2018, what I should do is create the following
patches:
dwm-hal-6.2.patch
dwm-hal-6.3.patch
dwm-hal-git-2018-05-13.patch
And that's it! :D
TL;DR
There are 3 rules here that we should abide to:
1) If you update the patch against git HEAD, remove the old
git-patch. There should always be one latest git patch.
People who really need an older git patch can check the
suckless-wiki git-logs.
2) If you publish a new patch, create 2 versions: for
the latest release and for git HEAD (even if they're
the same)
3) Maintaining a patch involves both creating new patches
for future tags and updating the git-patch as often
as necessary so it's easy enough to use.
An exception is when a feature pulled into mainline
makes the patch superfluous.
A point of debate for me really is when it comes to those super-
fluous patches. Should we remove them or provide them for older
versions of dwm?
In my opinion, there is no reason for this legacy stuff. The
dwm-patch section is already cramped enough, a cleanup would
be pretty helpful.
What do you guys think?
Hi, FRIGN
I suggest using the same syntax as in st which is well maintained, eg:
st-scrollback.diff
st-git-20151217-scrollback.diff
Talking stuff here won't change much, just change suckless.org/wiki.md
so that most of the people can see it.
--
Do what you like, like what you do. -- Pickfire
