> On Oct 6, 2016, at 12:04 PM, Rainer Müller wrote:
>
> On 2016-10-06 13:56, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
>> I don't care if we use *.diff or *.patch. Either is fine, but I would
>> prefer if we would stick to one ending and try to be as consistent as
>> we can be.
>
> Some statistics on consistency:
>
On 2016-10-06 13:56, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
> I don't care if we use *.diff or *.patch. Either is fine, but I would
> prefer if we would stick to one ending and try to be as consistent as
> we can be.
Some statistics on consistency:
$ find dports -name '*.diff' |wc -l
4922
$ find dports -name
Hi,
I don't care if we use *.diff or *.patch. Either is fine, but I would
prefer if we would stick to one ending and try to be as consistent as
we can be.
The "patch-" prefix is a bit redundant indeed, but then again I don't
care that much. I would be OK with removal, but again I would like to
ke
>
> The initial patch-* policy was adopted from FreeBSD ports. The filename
> extension .diff was added later for this reason.
>
> If we want to change the patch naming policy, should we allow both
> *.diff and *.patch or would one file extension be bet
syntax highlighting. As long as we use a .diff or .patch extension,
> to indicate to a syntax highlighter that this is a diff or patch
> file, that should be fine.
The initial patch-* policy was adopted from FreeBSD ports. The filename
extension .diff was added later for this reason.
If we
