On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 12:02:28 -0700 ""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" <phajdan...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 4/6/13 11:08 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > 5. The patch name shall shortly summarize the changes done by it. > > Common sense again. :) And I agree that patches should do that, the > question is just whether we put common sense into the policy. Well, I think it's more like pointing out the few people who rather use very short and ambiguous names. Although the git naming is bit verbose here, I prefer that than 'lm.patch'. find /usr/portage -name '*.patch' \ | awk -F/ '{ print length($NF) " " $NF }' | sort -k1 -n > /tmp/lol > > 6. Patch files shall start with a brief description of what the patch > > does. Developers are encouraged to use git-style tags like 'Fixes:' to > > point to the relevant bug URIs. > > That could be helpful - could this be made more precise though? Is there > any existing convention (going beyond git style, but specifically > designed for distro or similar patches) we could follow? I would honestly just go for the git style. It's the first thing that really succeeded in standardizing patches. Inventing something new is not really necessary, I believe. > > 7. Patch combining is discouraged. Developers shall prefer multiple > > patches following either the upstream commits or a logical commit > > sequence (if changes are not committed upstream). > > Common sense as well. Tell that to the people who believe in space savings :). > > (2) is likely to be a bikeshed point here. Long story short, epatch has > > this fragile patchlevel guessing, users don't have it. If we keep our > > patches consistent to a single patchlevel, we gain: > > > > * ability for users to apply the patches without having them try all > > patchlevels by hand. > > > > * clean error output if patch stops to apply for some reason. > > > > * no risk that patch will get applied to the wrong file if patch stops > > to apply at expected patchlevel and starts to apply on another. > > The above two points are convincing for me. However, I do acknowledge > that it some cases the guessing behavior can be useful for some people > (e.g. different layout of git repo vs. release tarballs). > > How about having a one guessing and one non-guessing variant of epatch, > and encouraging the non-guessing one? In the end we will probably have a simple patch applying method from PMS, and we will keep the epatch eclass monster -- at least for some time. To be honest, I'd rather prefer to find a good way to help people add correct '-p'. We can -- for example -- make portage try various patchlevels and suggest one if applying patch failed. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature