+1 on this proposal.
Using the JIRA number (as implied in the proposal) in the patch name is also
very useful for folks like me who review a bunch of patches. I usually end
up renaming the patch files when downloading them.
Cheers,
- Merov
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 6:49 AM, Aleric Inglewood <
aleric.inglew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> the jira makes no difference between Snowglobe 1.4 and Snowglobe 2.1, the
> two most active development branches
> at the moment. While many jira entries are specifically about one or the
> other, some things apply to both.
> There are two ways to deal with this: either create a new jira for the same
> thing, so we have two jira
> entries about the same thing, one for patches related to 1.x and one for
> patches related to 2.x.
> However, that is not always feasible. The second option is to use one jira
> for both and just attach
> patches (if they differ) for both branches to the same jira.
>
> For that latter case I propose to use the following convention:
>
> Patches that are for 1.x should start with SNOW1-123_description.diff
> Patches that are for 2.x should start with SNOW2-123_description.diff
>
> Leaving out the version would mean it applies in general. Ie,
> SNOW-123_description.diff
> should apply to 1.x and/or 2.x (depending on what the jira is about).
> If there is a patch that is specifically for SG 2.0, and the patch for 2.1
> has to look different, you can call it SNOW20-123_description.diff, etc.
>
> Aleric
>
>
> ___
> Policies and (un)subscribe information available here:
> http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev
> Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting
> privileges
>
___
Policies and (un)subscribe information available here:
http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev
Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
