patch naming scheme.
For a while, diffs in the Fedora kernel have followed the form linux-2.6-*.patch Then, we started seeing some git snapshots show up as git-*.diff and lately, everything seems to have gone bananas, with no particular scheme at all.. nvidia-agp.patch, percpu_counter_sum_cleanup.patch, xfs-barrier-fix.patch etc etc. Maybe I'm being overly anal. The linux-2.6- prefix is kind of pointless (given that duh, they're all going to be against Linux 2.6), but it does group things nicely in an ls output if nothing else. So, what are peoples thoughts on this? Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk ___ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
Re: patch naming scheme.
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 03:14:42PM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote: In the X server I try to keep the original version the patch was against in the name, to give some idea of how old a patch is. Admittedly this is less useful with the kernel because you guys have ridiculous version numbers, but even just being able to see the difference between linux-2.6.9-foo.patch and linux-2.6.27-bar.patch might be useful. Way back when, we used to do that. But that kind of loses its meaning too. For stuff that's never going upstream, you end up with linux-2.6.5-execshield And for other patches older than 1 version, why aren't they upstream again? Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk ___ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
Re: patch naming scheme.
Dave Jones wrote: For a while, diffs in the Fedora kernel have followed the form linux-2.6-*.patch Then, we started seeing some git snapshots show up as git-*.diff and lately, everything seems to have gone bananas, with no particular scheme at all.. nvidia-agp.patch, percpu_counter_sum_cleanup.patch, xfs-barrier-fix.patch etc etc. Maybe I'm being overly anal. The linux-2.6- prefix is kind of pointless (given that duh, they're all going to be against Linux 2.6), but it does group things nicely in an ls output if nothing else. So, what are peoples thoughts on this? Dave If we'd prefix them with the source package name, in this case kernel, it would make it a lot easier to find things in /usr/src/redhat/SOURCES when we've got SRPMs from different packages installed. We should probably avoid using names that refer to a specific upstream version, because the name becomes misleading once we rebase. When there's a suitable upstream patch name, like the names Andrew Morton uses in -mm, we should probably use those (perhaps prepended with kernel-) to make it clear what it corresponds to upstream. -- Chris ___ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
Re: patch naming scheme.
On Friday 10 October 2008 17:27:00 Chris Snook wrote: Dave Jones wrote: For a while, diffs in the Fedora kernel have followed the form linux-2.6-*.patch Then, we started seeing some git snapshots show up as git-*.diff and lately, everything seems to have gone bananas, with no particular scheme at all.. nvidia-agp.patch, percpu_counter_sum_cleanup.patch, xfs-barrier-fix.patch etc etc. Maybe I'm being overly anal. The linux-2.6- prefix is kind of pointless (given that duh, they're all going to be against Linux 2.6), but it does group things nicely in an ls output if nothing else. So, what are peoples thoughts on this? Dave If we'd prefix them with the source package name, in this case kernel, it would make it a lot easier to find things in /usr/src/redhat/SOURCES when we've got SRPMs from different packages installed. We should probably avoid using names that refer to a specific upstream version, because the name becomes misleading once we rebase. When there's a suitable upstream patch name, like the names Andrew Morton uses in -mm, we should probably use those (perhaps prepended with kernel-) to make it clear what it corresponds to upstream. Yeah, I'd be happy with pkgname-tree id-description.patch, omitting the tree id portion if there isn't one, or some variant thereof. Being able to do an 'ls kernel*.patch' is definitely useful. -- Jarod Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
Re: patch naming scheme.
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 05:55:50PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote: On Friday 10 October 2008 17:27:00 Chris Snook wrote: Dave Jones wrote: For a while, diffs in the Fedora kernel have followed the form linux-2.6-*.patch Then, we started seeing some git snapshots show up as git-*.diff and lately, everything seems to have gone bananas, with no particular scheme at all.. nvidia-agp.patch, percpu_counter_sum_cleanup.patch, xfs-barrier-fix.patch etc etc. Maybe I'm being overly anal. The linux-2.6- prefix is kind of pointless (given that duh, they're all going to be against Linux 2.6), but it does group things nicely in an ls output if nothing else. So, what are peoples thoughts on this? Dave If we'd prefix them with the source package name, in this case kernel, it would make it a lot easier to find things in /usr/src/redhat/SOURCES when we've got SRPMs from different packages installed. We should probably avoid using names that refer to a specific upstream version, because the name becomes misleading once we rebase. When there's a suitable upstream patch name, like the names Andrew Morton uses in -mm, we should probably use those (perhaps prepended with kernel-) to make it clear what it corresponds to upstream. Yeah, I'd be happy with pkgname-tree id-description.patch, omitting the tree id portion if there isn't one, or some variant thereof. Being able to do an 'ls kernel*.patch' is definitely useful. kernel-* is sacred. Tab completion ftw. :) Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk ___ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
Re: patch naming scheme.
Dave Jones wrote: For a while, diffs in the Fedora kernel have followed the form linux-2.6-*.patch Then, we started seeing some git snapshots show up as git-*.diff and lately, everything seems to have gone bananas, with no particular scheme at all.. nvidia-agp.patch, percpu_counter_sum_cleanup.patch, xfs-barrier-fix.patch etc etc. Urk, even though Dave says he wasn't picking on me, 2/3 of those mentioned were mine. Oops. Sorry. :) One of them was from the upstream patch queue, the other was just whatever name popped into my head when I imported it into a quilt stack. As an aside - but maybe relevant - how much description / lineage / whatever should go into the spec file comments vs. into the TODO file? -Eric ___ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
Re: patch naming scheme.
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 08:43:34PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: As an aside - but maybe relevant - how much description / lineage / whatever should go into the spec file comments vs. into the TODO file? The TODO is pretty free form, put whatever you want in there. Pointers to upstream discussion (if any exists) is a good start, as is any other info on its upstream progress. The specfile - One liners are fine. Think about the sort of thing that goes in the git shortlog upstream. If bugzillas exist, referencing them with (#123456) at the end seems to be the standard way of mentioning them. I don't want to get beurocratic about all this (hey, it's Fedora, not RHEL :) so I'm not going to be imposing any kind of enforcement on the above. Just go with what feels 'right'. General rule of thumb: Some info is better than no info. Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk ___ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
Re: patch naming scheme.
On Friday 10 October 2008 20:37:24 Dave Jones wrote: On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 05:55:50PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote: On Friday 10 October 2008 17:27:00 Chris Snook wrote: Dave Jones wrote: For a while, diffs in the Fedora kernel have followed the form linux-2.6-*.patch Then, we started seeing some git snapshots show up as git-*.diff and lately, everything seems to have gone bananas, with no particular scheme at all.. nvidia-agp.patch, percpu_counter_sum_cleanup.patch, xfs-barrier-fix.patch etc etc. Maybe I'm being overly anal. The linux-2.6- prefix is kind of pointless (given that duh, they're all going to be against Linux 2.6), but it does group things nicely in an ls output if nothing else. So, what are peoples thoughts on this? Dave If we'd prefix them with the source package name, in this case kernel, it would make it a lot easier to find things in /usr/src/redhat/SOURCES when we've got SRPMs from different packages installed. We should probably avoid using names that refer to a specific upstream version, because the name becomes misleading once we rebase. When there's a suitable upstream patch name, like the names Andrew Morton uses in -mm, we should probably use those (perhaps prepended with kernel-) to make it clear what it corresponds to upstream. Yeah, I'd be happy with pkgname-tree id-description.patch, omitting the tree id portion if there isn't one, or some variant thereof. Being able to do an 'ls kernel*.patch' is definitely useful. kernel-* is sacred. Tab completion ftw. :) Ah, good point, s/kernel/linux/ then maybe? -- Jarod Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
