+1 on this proposal. Using the JIRA number (as implied in the proposal) in the patch name is also very useful for folks like me who review a bunch of patches. I usually end up renaming the patch files when downloading them.
Cheers, - Merov On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 6:49 AM, Aleric Inglewood < aleric.inglew...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > the jira makes no difference between Snowglobe 1.4 and Snowglobe 2.1, the > two most active development branches > at the moment. While many jira entries are specifically about one or the > other, some things apply to both. > There are two ways to deal with this: either create a new jira for the same > thing, so we have two jira > entries about the same thing, one for patches related to 1.x and one for > patches related to 2.x. > However, that is not always feasible. The second option is to use one jira > for both and just attach > patches (if they differ) for both branches to the same jira. > > For that latter case I propose to use the following convention: > > Patches that are for 1.x should start with SNOW1-123_description.diff > Patches that are for 2.x should start with SNOW2-123_description.diff > > Leaving out the version would mean it applies in general. Ie, > SNOW-123_description.diff > should apply to 1.x and/or 2.x (depending on what the jira is about). > If there is a patch that is specifically for SG 2.0, and the patch for 2.1 > has to look different, you can call it SNOW20-123_description.diff, etc. > > Aleric > > > _______________________________________________ > Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: > http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev > Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting > privileges >
_______________________________________________ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
