I think people forget we have a wiki that documents this and other things ...
https://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/HowToContribute#Naming_your_patch On Dec 2, 2014, at 10:01 AM, Tsuyoshi OZAWA <ozawa.tsuyo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> <jiraNameId>.[branchName.]<revisionNum>.patch* > > +1 for this format. Thanks for starting the discussion, Yongjun. > > - Tsuyoshi > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Yongjun Zhang <yzh...@cloudera.com> wrote: >> Thank you all for the feedback. >> >> About how many digits to use, I personally find it's not annoying to type >> one extra digit, but as long as we have the rev number, it achieves the >> goal of identifying individual patch. >> >> About the rest of the name, as long as we keep it the same for the same >> patch, it would work fine. >> >> This boils down to patch naming guideline: >> >> * <jiraNameId>.[branchName.]<revisionNum>.patch* >> >> - Example jiraNameId: HADOOP-1234, HDFS-4321 >> - When the patch is targeted for trunk, then there is no need for the >> branchName portion, otherwise, specify the branchName accordingly. Example: >> branch1, branch2. >> - It's recommended to use three digits for <revisionNum> for better >> sorting of different versions of patches. >> >> Would anyone who has the privilege please help to modify the following page >> >> http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/HowToContribute#Naming_your_patch >> >> accordingly? >> >> Thanks a lot. >> >> --Yongjun >> >> On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Colin McCabe <cmcc...@alumni.cmu.edu> >> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Karthik Kambatla <ka...@cloudera.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Yongjun, thanks for starting this thread. I personally like Steve's >>>> suggestions, but think two digits should be enough. >>>> >>>> I propose we limit the restrictions to versioning the patches with >>> version >>>> numbers and .patch extension. People have their own preferences for the >>>> rest of the name (e.g. MAPREDUCE, MapReduce, MR, mr, mapred) and I don't >>>> see a gain in forcing everyone to use one. >>>> >>>> Putting the suggestions (tight and loose) on the wiki would help new >>>> contributors as well. >>>> >>>> >>> +1 >>> >>> best, >>> Colin >>> >>> >>>> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Eric Payne >>> <erichadoo...@yahoo.com.invalid >>>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> +1.The "different color for newest patch" doesn't work very well if you >>>>> are color blind, so I do appreciate a revision number in the name. >>>>> >>>>> From: Yongjun Zhang <yzh...@cloudera.com> >>>>> To: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 11:37 PM >>>>> Subject: Re: a friendly suggestion for developers when uploading >>> patches >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Harsh for the info and Andrew for sharing the script. It looks >>>> that >>>>> the script is intelligent enough to pick the latest attachment even if >>>> all >>>>> attachments have the same name. >>>>> >>>>> Yet, I hope we use the following as the guideline for patch names: >>>>> >>>>> <*projectName*>-<*jiraNum*>-<*revNum*>.patch >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So we can easily identify individual patch revs. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> --Yongjun >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Andrew Wang <andrew.w...@cloudera.com >>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> This might be a good time to mention my fetch-patch script, I use it >>> to >>>>>> easily download the latest attachment on a jira: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://github.com/umbrant/dotfiles/blob/master/bin/fetch-patch >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Harsh J <ha...@cloudera.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> For the same filename, you can observe also that the JIRA colors >>> the >>>>>>> latest one to be different than the older ones automatically - this >>>> is >>>>>>> what I rely on. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 12:36 AM, Yongjun Zhang < >>> yzh...@cloudera.com >>>>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> When I look at patches uploaded to jiras, from time to time I >>>> notice >>>>>> that >>>>>>>> different revisions of the patch is uploaded with the same patch >>>> file >>>>>>> name, >>>>>>>> some time for quite a few times. It's confusing which is which. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'd suggest that as a guideline, we do the following when >>>> uploading a >>>>>>> patch: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - include a revision number in the patch file name.A >>>>>>>> - include a comment, stating that a new patch is uploaded, >>>>> including >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> revision number of the patch in the comment. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This way, it's easier to refer to a specific version of a patch, >>>> and >>>>> to >>>>>>>> know which patch a comment is made about. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hope that makes sense to you. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --Yongjun >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Harsh J >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> > > > > -- > - Tsuyoshi
