Just wondering what the rest of the community reckons about an issue that popped up briefly on IRC.
I'll start with an example: some patches, for a long time, have been named `dwm-6.1-fibwibble.diff`—long before dwm-6.1 was released. When I was more of a newbie, this was confusing. Now, though, I do understand that it was really just a patch against master "in anticipation" of the next version/tag. It all seems fine before this version is released, because "everyone knows 6.1 isn't out yet," so it "must be a patch against master." It gets confusing though, because some patches stop being updated to the latest master, so when the new version actually arrives, these patches which look like they will apply, whereas they are actually patches against some old ref, perhaps from months or years ago What I'm proposing, or rather asking for the community opinion on, is whether or not we continue naming (what are really git master) patches like this. What I propose is what a lot of patches already use, which is: * foo-[short commit hash].diff * foo-YYYYMMDD.diff * foo-YYYY-MM-DD.diff or a combination/mish-mash of the above. (It might be good to settle on the (standard) YYYY-MM-DD rather than YYYYMMDD in this discussion as well) What do you all think?
