On 27 August 2013 22:14, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > Dnia 2013-08-18, o godz. 18:39:56 > Ulrich Mueller <u...@gentoo.org> napisał(a): > > > 3. So far, we don't have a good name for the function. > > eapply. > > - consistent with 'git apply', > - short, > - e* prefix, > - no known collisions. > > I wouldn't call it perfect since the name may be a little unclear. > However, considering that all the names using word 'patch' would be > confusing (especially to new users who will confuse how two '*patch' > functions differ) it seems like a good idea. > > -- > Best regards, > Michał Górny >
I'd suggest epatch_native , its clear in its intent, and its clear in the difference from the eutils format. I had a side thought were I imagined it might be plausible to have it just called "epatch" ( with epatch_native being a resolution alias to avoid the eutils version ), because inheriting eutils would shadow the native one with the eutils form, but then realised that path is not viable to us by proxy of eutils doing more than just patching, making the effort to use native patches more effort instead of less. I'd imagine transitioning from epatch to epatch_native would be quite easy to do on a large amount of ebuilds as long as authors have already had consistent patch generation approaches, but the shadow based mechanism on serious thought gives no real benefit with room for user error. -- Kent
