On 16 June 2016 at 16:15, FRIGN wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 07:27:58 +0200
> Anselm R Garbe wrote:
>> I would suggest to use: --> hash>-.patch
>
> st-externalpipe-ea87104-160423.patch
>
Well, fair enough. My final suggestion is then:
---.patch
Would make:
st-externalpipe-20160423-ea8
Here's a fixed version of dwmfifo using the naming conventions that
seem current give
practice in st and discussion here: since it's against a release
version nothing but that
in the tag.
I like the st format for names of patches against non-release ok,
though I can see the
case for git commit as
Hi,
> Admittedly, I don't immediately see the date in there.
You will as soon as you have seen another one.
> Also, always
> think about how you can enforce this properly. Most people don't even
> know how to get a short hash.
Too bad for “most people”, they'll have to learn (that “getting” a
shor
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 4:15 PM, FRIGN wrote:
>> I would suggest to use: --> hash>-.patch
>
> st-externalpipe-ea87104-160423.patch
>
> Admittedly, I don't immediately see the date in there.
Use 4 digit years. Also, there's ISO-8601 [0].
cheers!
mar77i
[0] https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/i
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 10:23:15 +0200
v4hn wrote:
Hey v4hn,
> No. It indicates that individuals make use of some patches and contribute
> their changes to make a patch work with whatever git checkout they use.
>
> Threads such as this one only appear because people who are too lazy to
> update pat
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 07:27:58 +0200
Anselm R Garbe wrote:
Hey Anselm,
> I would suggest to use: -- hash>-.patch
st-externalpipe-ea87104-160423.patch
Admittedly, I don't immediately see the date in there. Also, always
think about how you can enforce this properly. Most people don't even
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 09:58:34AM +0200, Kamil Cholewiński wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016, David Phillips wrote:
> > What? Since when were any patches "supported"?
>
> The amount of effort that goes into organising them (as evidenced by the
> thread) indicates that, in fact, there is some "support
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016, David Phillips wrote:
> What? Since when were any patches "supported"?
The amount of effort that goes into organising them (as evidenced by the
thread) indicates that, in fact, there is some "support".