Re: Patch naming policy (was: Re: [153574] trunk/dports/sysutils/skey)

[Mojca Miklavec]

Hi,

I don't care if we use *.diff or *.patch. Either is fine, but I would
prefer if we would stick to one ending and try to be as consistent as
we can be.

The "patch-" prefix is a bit redundant indeed, but then again I don't
care that much. I would be OK with removal, but again I would like to
keep it consistent in the future (at least for new commits/changes).

But from what I remember the biggest concern was what to put
*inbetween* those two. That's probably a more relevant question.

Mojca
___
macports-dev mailing list
macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org
https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev

Re: Patch naming policy (was: Re: [153574] trunk/dports/sysutils/skey)

[Chris Jones]

> On 5 Oct 2016, at 2:56 pm, Rainer Müller  wrote:
> 
> On 2016-10-05 01:45, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>> Patches should follow the patch-*.diff naming scheme, so this
>>> should be named patch-skeyprune-man8.diff or similar.
>>> 
>>> https://guide.macports.org/#development.patches.source
>> 
>> Popular opinion seems to be that we should relax that restriction.
>> 
>> I think it's reasonable if we change it to "patch-*.diff or
>> *.patch".
>> 
>> My primary gripe was with the way patches used to be named
>> "patch-foo" or "patch-foo.c" which caused editors to use incorrect
>> syntax highlighting. As long as we use a .diff or .patch extension,
>> to indicate to a syntax highlighter that this is a diff or patch
>> file, that should be fine.
> 
> The initial patch-* policy was adopted from FreeBSD ports. The filename
> extension .diff was added later for this reason.
> 
> If we want to change the patch naming policy, should we allow both
> *.diff and *.patch or would one file extension be better to avoid
> configuring editors twice?

My bet is any decent editor, at least those which support software development, 
would already support both.

> 
> Rainer
> ___
> macports-dev mailing list
> macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org
> https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev

___
macports-dev mailing list
macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org
https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev

Patch naming policy (was: Re: [153574] trunk/dports/sysutils/skey)

[Rainer Müller]

On 2016-10-05 01:45, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> Patches should follow the patch-*.diff naming scheme, so this
>> should be named patch-skeyprune-man8.diff or similar.
>> 
>> https://guide.macports.org/#development.patches.source
> 
> Popular opinion seems to be that we should relax that restriction.
> 
> I think it's reasonable if we change it to "patch-*.diff or
> *.patch".
> 
> My primary gripe was with the way patches used to be named
> "patch-foo" or "patch-foo.c" which caused editors to use incorrect
> syntax highlighting. As long as we use a .diff or .patch extension,
> to indicate to a syntax highlighter that this is a diff or patch
> file, that should be fine.

The initial patch-* policy was adopted from FreeBSD ports. The filename
extension .diff was added later for this reason.

If we want to change the patch naming policy, should we allow both
*.diff and *.patch or would one file extension be better to avoid
configuring editors twice?

Rainer
___
macports-dev mailing list
macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org
https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev