On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 10:01:43 -0800
Britton Kerin wrote:
>
the right format is
--.diff
for release patches. Now do some work and change it to that...
Use the st patches as reference, they are correct and have been
agreed upon.
Cheers
FRIGN
--
FRIGN
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 10:07 PM, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> 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 sugg
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 09:14:30 +0200
Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> The date should always be updated, whenever the patch is touched in some way.
Agreed.
@All:
Check out http://st.suckless.org/patches/, I changed the patch name formatting
as discussed here.
Cheers
FRIGN
--
FRIGN
On 17 June 2016 at 09:12, Quentin Rameau wrote:
>> ---.patch
>> Would make:
>> st-externalpipe-20160423-ea87104.patch
> Should the date remain the creation date while the hash is updated, or
> should the date be bumped up too?
The date should always be updated, whenever the patch is touched in s
> Well, fair enough. My final suggestion is then:
>
> ---.patch
>
> Would make:
>
> st-externalpipe-20160423-ea87104.patch
Yes I prefer this too, iirc that's the format suggested on the last
discussion on that topic.
The date here will satisfy sorting, and the hash is quite handy to
looking cha
