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 [1]). - 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. [1] http://www.openembedded.org/wiki/Commit_Patch_Message_Guidelines#Patch_Header_Recommendations -- Clemens
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev