On Mon, 6 Sep 2010, Stephan Kulow wrote:
Am Montag 06 September 2010 schrieb Vincent Untz:
Le lundi 06 septembre 2010, à 11:51 +0200, Michal Marek a écrit :
Having good patch filenames helps you as well, the rest can live in the patch headers. The autobuild team has to review the patches themselves anyway. To me it really looks like the goal is to make Vincent's statistics work fast and reliable and anything else is secondary to that.
I'm sorry if it looks this way, but I can tell you that it's not the goal: I haven't look at the stat page for a while, and I still find those patch tags useful when I look at a package I haven't looked at for a few weeks. Or when I review a change made by someone else.
Perhaps we can make a compromise and have vital infos in the file name and the rest in the patch itself? This also avoid duplication because if you send the patch upstream, you usually send the file name too.
Seconded. It's one of the nicest things for an original-source (upstream) maintainer if a patch is not only annotated in the patch, but also has a declaring name. "{Package}-{What_do_I_do}-{Version_If_needed}.patch" or similar is nice to have, because it conserves brain-power for more precious things to do. Cheers, and thanks for the constructiv discussion, Michael Förster aka Yamaban.