> Well, fair enough. My final suggestion is then: > > <project>-<patch title>-<YYYYMMDD>-<short hash>.patch > > Would make: > > st-externalpipe-20160423-ea87104.patch
Yes I prefer this too, iirc that's the format suggested on the last discussion on that topic. The date here will satisfy sorting, and the hash is quite handy to looking changes since the last working commit (for example: git log -p short-hash..) Should the date remain the creation date while the hash is updated, or should the date be bumped up too? > I disagree with the concern that people can't cope with short hashes. > If they are able to perform a wiki contribution, we should assume that > they will cope well. And googling for "short git hash" or similar > points to results immediatly. And add some hints on a wiki page explaining what format is expected and how to get it.
