The only reason I can think of for keeping the prefix is that all patches would be sorted together in a file listing. Not a very strong reason.
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 7:39 AM, Ryan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > I think we should relax the restrictions on patchfile naming currently > implemented in port lint. I'd like to discuss it here before I file a ticket. > > Currently, we complain if a patchfile is not named "patch-*.diff". But we > already have many files in the repository named "*.patch" for example. We are > proposing adding a job to the buildbot that automatically runs port lint, and > we don't want it to complain about a requirement we're not following in > practice anyway. > > The only reason why I originally wanted a lint check was that we used to have > patchfile names like "patch-*", with no separate extension. This resulted in > patchfile names like "patch-foo.c", which, when opened into an editor that > configures syntax highlighting based on filename extension, would be syntax > highlighted as if they were a .c file, when it was desired to see syntax > highlighting that was tailored for a diff. > > I would be happy if lint were changed to just check that patchfile names end > with .diff or .patch. Would anyone object to that? > -- arno s hautala /-| [email protected] pgp b2c9d448
