On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Craig Citro<craigci...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> I think the following is a counterexample to "The trac_ prefix does >>>> not bring any useful information." >>> >>> I still think it's not really, and it is just making the name longer, >>> but I don't really care either. >> >> I don't see the use for it either, but it's not a huge issue for me. >> > > I want to weigh in with a +1 on letting patches start with trac_. I > use it so that patches in a directory on my machine are grouped > together -- it's much easier to see them and move them around that > way, because then trac_* picks them up. I also use a system similar to > John Cremona, it seems -- patches named random_thing.patch are > half-finished things, and trac_xxxx-descr.patch are ready to get > uploaded. (So I can't just use *.patch -- it'll pick up both kinds of > patches.)
Put 'em in a folder, then -- trac/* will pick 'em up. Having tickets start with a repo name would vastly improve the automerge experience. +1 to repo_num_desc.patch > > Of course, I'm also +10 on having the ticket number and a short > description, as everyone else commented, but that seems to be > unanimous on this thread. > > -cc > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
