On 10/11/2015, David Phillips <dbphillip...@gmail.com> wrote: > Just wondering what the rest of the community reckons about an issue > that popped up briefly on IRC. > > I'll start with an example: some patches, for a long time, have been > named `dwm-6.1-fibwibble.diff`—long before dwm-6.1 was released. When > I was more of a newbie, this was confusing. Now, though, I do > understand that it was really just a patch against master "in > anticipation" of the next version/tag. > > It all seems fine before this version is released, because "everyone > knows 6.1 isn't out yet," so it "must be a patch against master." It > gets confusing though, because some patches stop being updated to the > latest master, so when the new version actually arrives, these patches > which look like they will apply, whereas they are actually patches > against some old ref, perhaps from months or years ago > > What I'm proposing, or rather asking for the community opinion on, is > whether or not we continue naming (what are really git master) patches > like this. > > What I propose is what a lot of patches already use, which is: > > * foo-[short commit hash].diff > * foo-YYYYMMDD.diff > * foo-YYYY-MM-DD.diff > > or a combination/mish-mash of the above. > > (It might be good to settle on the (standard) YYYY-MM-DD rather than > YYYYMMDD in this discussion as well) > > What do you all think? >
I should amend my comment about date formats, it would appear I was incorrect in implying YYYYMMDD is non-standard. But it might still be nice to settle on one or the other.