* Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Establishing Gentoo patch policy to keep our patches consistent and clean
@ 2013-04-06 19:02 99% ` "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
0 siblings, 0 replies; 1+ results
From: "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." @ 2013-04-06 19:02 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2009 bytes --]
On 4/6/13 11:08 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> 1. Patches have to be either in unified or context diff format. Unified
> diff is preferred.
Are there any other formats than unified and context diff? If not, it'd
be like another "for indoor or outdoor use only" or "home or office use"
- i.e. no need to explicitly list all possible options.
> 5. The patch name shall shortly summarize the changes done by it.
Common sense again. :) And I agree that patches should do that, the
question is just whether we put common sense into the policy.
> 6. Patch files shall start with a brief description of what the patch
> does. Developers are encouraged to use git-style tags like 'Fixes:' to
> point to the relevant bug URIs.
That could be helpful - could this be made more precise though? Is there
any existing convention (going beyond git style, but specifically
designed for distro or similar patches) we could follow?
> 7. Patch combining is discouraged. Developers shall prefer multiple
> patches following either the upstream commits or a logical commit
> sequence (if changes are not committed upstream).
Common sense as well.
> (2) is likely to be a bikeshed point here. Long story short, epatch has
> this fragile patchlevel guessing, users don't have it. If we keep our
> patches consistent to a single patchlevel, we gain:
>
> * ability for users to apply the patches without having them try all
> patchlevels by hand.
>
> * clean error output if patch stops to apply for some reason.
>
> * no risk that patch will get applied to the wrong file if patch stops
> to apply at expected patchlevel and starts to apply on another.
The above two points are convincing for me. However, I do acknowledge
that it some cases the guessing behavior can be useful for some people
(e.g. different layout of git repo vs. release tarballs).
How about having a one guessing and one non-guessing variant of epatch,
and encouraging the non-guessing one?
Paweł
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 203 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 99%]
Results 1-1 of 1 | reverse | options above
-- pct% links below jump to the message on this page, permalinks otherwise --
2013-04-06 18:08 [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Establishing Gentoo patch policy to keep our patches consistent and clean Michał Górny
2013-04-06 19:02 99% ` "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox