Joe Conway <m...@joeconway.com> writes:
> Completely unrelated process bikeshedding:
> I changed the naming scheme I used for the split patch-set this time. I
> don't know if we have a settled/documented pattern for such naming, but
> the original pattern which I borrowed from someone else's patches was
> "vX-NNNN-description.patch".
As far as that goes, that filename pattern is what is generated by
"git format-patch". I agree that the digit-count choices are a tad
odd, but they're not so awful as to be worth trying to override.
> The new pattern I picked is "description-vXXX-NN.patch" which fixes all
> of those issues.
Only if you use the same "description" for all patches of a series,
which seems kind of not the point. In any case, "git format-patch"
is considered best practice for a multi-patch series AFAIK, so we
have to cope with its ideas about how to name the files.
regards, tom lane
