Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia
jeremyhu at apple.com
Sat Aug 6 13:08:15 PDT 2016
FWIW, I prefer 'git format-patch' output for patches. If I actually had to rename patches per file, maintaining llvm would be a nightmare. =/
> On Aug 4, 2016, at 05:35, Clemens Lang <cal at macports.org> wrote:
> FWIW, I agree with Lawrence here. I think we should improve our patch
> naming, especially since it doesn't really matter *where* a patch comes
> from, either. Why do we really need to know whether a patch-*.diff file
> comes from MacPorts when compared to a different patch? We should be
> judging patches by their content, not their origin.
> What I've seen in other systems and would also recommend as a guideline
> for patches in MacPorts:
> - Write a commit message into the patch file. Patch headers can include
> arbitrary text, so type a message explaining what the patch does and
> why it is needed. Add references to any upstream tickets (I've
> started doing this for my ports according to OpenEmbedded's
> Upstream-Status tag ).
> - Use the summary line of the commit message as patch name, like git
> format-patch does it.
> I have in the past also ignored our patch naming guidelines when I
> thought it made sense; for example, I generally backport patches from
> upstream git repositories using <commithash>.patch, because that's what
> GitHub generates.
>  http://www.openembedded.org/wiki/Commit_Patch_Message_Guidelines#Patch_Header_Recommendations
> macports-dev mailing list
> macports-dev at lists.macosforge.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 4465 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the macports-dev