On 15 June 2016 at 19:45, FRIGN <[email protected]> wrote: > we also had this discussion already. The point here is: using the date of > the "update" is the best and easiest heuristic. you see with one look > if a git-patch is relatively old or new.
I would suggest to use: <project>-<patch title>-<short git hash>-<YYMMDD>.patch Replacing the "git" portion with the short hash makes it much more accurate to what git version the patch applies to. Also condensing the date to skip the century is a good idea in the year 2016. Still 84 years to come without a century problem of patch file names. I would even go that far to skip the date completely. It doesn't really tell you much. If someone bothers of the age of a patch, then you can always check git with the hash. -Anselm
