cvs commit: ports/shells/bash1/files patch-af patch-am patch-an patch-ao patch-ap patch-aq patch-ar patch-as patch-at patch-builtins-common.c patch-builtins-common.h patch-error.c patch-error.h patch-print_cmd.c patch-readline-display.c ...

[David O'Brien]

On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 06:42:39PM -0400, Michael Edenfield wrote:
> * David E. O'Brien <obrien at FreeBSD.org> [030831 04:06]:
> >   Log:
> >   Fix build on -current (varargs -> stdarg)
> >   [don't propagate the poorly named patch files from the PR]
...
> Is is preferred not to name patches patch-aa?  And if so why are there
> so many of those in the ports tree already?  Just wanted to know before
> I go do any more of these.

The old style was to name them patch-[a-z][a-z].  Some of us didn't think
that made sense so we used patch-[:numbers:][:numbers:].  When some of
the ports I maintained had 15 patches, I then started using
patch-<name_of_file_being_patched>, with a directory name added when
necessary.  This took off, but has happened in different forms.  I still
prefer the shortest patch filename that helps the maintainer deal with
all the patches.  It looses history to delete patches with older style
names and recreate them under new names -- so a mass patch file renaming
has never (and should never) take place.

In the end it is still up to the maintainer and/or committer what to name
the patches.  Since I have an interest in the Bash shell, I wanted new
patches to be more sainly named.

-- 
-- David  (obrien at FreeBSD.org)