В Sun, 11 Jan 2015 14:00:37 +0100
Bernhard Voelker
On 01/11/2015 01:41 PM, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Sunday 2015-01-11 13:27, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
I guess moving the patches around in the sequence is not that common
It happens (like, when inserting a patch between 1 and 2). And when it does, it will be a mess renaming all the 204 patches.
Hmm, I don't think this would happen too often (here) - usually I'm leaving much space between the numbers, e.g. reserving 1xx and 2xx for upstream patches, 3xx - 4xx for openSUSE-specific adaptions, 5xx.. for downstream bugfixes, etc. There's no strict rule, but just to give you an idea. The {201..204} example was from a series of upstream patches to be included where the order won't change.
Not to mention the factory-auto/factory-repo-checker bot which will nag you about every "new" and "removed" patch not being mentioned in .changes.
When renaming patches - wouldn't one mention this in .changes?
For each of 200+ patches forced to be renamed for pure technical reason? Note that when using GIT to maintain patches you usually get numbering for free when generating patches.
I would ...
Have a nice day, Berny
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org