On Sun, Jan 07, 2007 at 07:32:37PM +0000, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Dirk Nehring dixit: > > >Since you are not documenting any patches, I suggest our old style > >patch format (xxx-<meaning of patch>.patch) > > 1. Forget it. > 2. Let n0-1 do what he decides is best. We agreed that the > package/subsystem maintainer decides, and that for small > patches, the BSD style is better, and for kernel and busybox, > the OpenWrt style is better. > 3. "Since you are not documenting" is not a reason to switch, > because the OpenWrt patch format isn't better without > documentation either. Rather the contrary.
I am very sorry for you that you are so tenacious in your opinion. The common style (not: OpenWRT style) is better in 2 ways than patching file by file: * patches are grouped together in one file when they belongs together (as in Asterisk's case) * patches have a short description in their filename. This is often very helpful. I recognize now I am casting pearls before swine... _______________________________________________ freewrt-developers mailing list [email protected] https://www.freewrt.org/lists/listinfo/freewrt-developers
