I agree with Scott.
I keep a patch folder that I download patches into. When I'm done with
them I delete them.
If someone wanted to evaluate the patch, they could rename it on their
machine - using whatever naming format makes sense to them.
Personally, I won't push too hard for this best practice.
-Adrian
Scott Gray wrote:
I think it's fine as a suggestion, but it may be worth keeping in mind
that every additional requirement we place on contributors could see the
number of contributions reduced. The contributors best practice page is
already quite long and the longer it gets the less likely people are to
read the whole thing or to read the important parts as thoroughly as
they might have. I don't mind either way but it's worth keeping in mind.
Personally I never even download patches, I just open them in the
browser, copy the text and then use apply patch from clipboard in
eclipse. It means I'm always guaranteed to be using the latest patch
and I don't end up a mess of patches on my machine.
Regards
Scott
On 20/05/2009, at 9:59 PM, Ray wrote:
+1
Consistency is good and if it makes it easier to work with then it
should be encouraged.
I would suggest to use the OFBIZ number first:
OFBIZ-number_featureDescription.patch
This would generally sort/group the files to 1 area which for list
views in file explorers can be handy.
Ray
Jacques Le Roux wrote:
After a short discussion at
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-2445 and following
Ashish's last comment I 'd like to suggest a new contributor best
practice for naming patches in Jira issue.
The name would be featureDescription_OFBIZ-number.patch where
featureDescription would be "full Jira issue title if its small" and
"part of title if its big" along with the OFBIZ-number as suffix.
Other suggestions may be found in the Jira issue above. It seems that
this should help commiters in their work...
WDYT ?
Jacques
