On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 10:20:22PM +0200, Georg Schwarz wrote:
> 
> Am 19.04.2006 um 22:10 schrieb joerg@britannica.bec.de:
> 
> >I'd suggest to following rules, if we want rules at all:
> >(1) Patches which are part of the normal package building are named
> >patches/patch-[a-z][a-z]
> 
> I'd suggest to add the following aspects:
> 
> * patches start with patch-aa, then continue with patch-ab, patch-ac,  
> etc.

This is not always optimal, check e.g. the DragonFly patches for
Mozilla. I explicitly started from a different letter to isolate them
and make them easier to submit upstream (Thanks, ghen :-)).

> * When an existing patch becomes no longer necessary and is removed  
> this does not affect the names of the other existing patches, not  
> even if such patches are modified later on

Jup, I think we all agree on this.

> * When a new patch is created, it is to be named as to fill existing  
> gaps in the naming order created by previously removed patches as  
> long as such gaps exist (at least that's how I think it has been done  
> so far)

This is not always a good idea. If you want to have a patch included
both in HEAD and stable, it makes a lot sense to use the same name.

> * Each patch should modify only a single source file; in order to  
> modify several source files, multiple patches should be used.

Good idea, that applies almost always. Exception would be (3) from the
original list.

Joerg