Re: Patch name changes

[Thomas Klausner <wiz%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 06:39:29AM +0200, Alistair Crooks wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 08:58:36PM +0200, Thomas Klausner wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 08:01:57PM +0200, Alistair Crooks wrote:
> > > Interesting syntax - is there any prior art for this kind of naming 
> > > scheme?
> > 
> > Yes, both FreeBSD and OpenBSD use it.
> 
> OK, thanks.  Not sure why you clipped the rest of my mail, or what the
> objection to a standardised scheme is...

I'll answer the other question first.

> Also, can you remind me again the driver for the change - i.e. what's
> the problem statement?  It's not obvious from your original mail.

I wrote in my original email:
> This makes it easier to see from the file system, what files are
> patched; it also helps packagers of other porting systems to more
> easily identify e.g. from cvsweb at which files to look. 

So my aim was better readability of patch file names for packagers
(from NetBSD or other systems). I don't think that strvis, even
http-style, is preferable, since "patch-path%2fto%2ffile" is much
harder to read than "patch-path_to_file" and we don't need the full
functionality of strvis since we just need to quote '/'.

Cheers,
 Thomas