[Freeipa-devel] Proposed standard for Patches: RFC

[Simo Sorce]

On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 16:26:13 -0400
Adam Young <ayoung at redhat.com> wrote:

> I'll admit this would be useful, but it would be another process that
> we don't have now, that I was trying to avoid.  We all have git repos
> on fedorapeople.  The trick is to deal with patches that have to get 
> changed prior to commit, hence the numbering of -2 -3 after the seq
> number.

Not sure what's the problem here, if I rebase a patch you have the
latest one in my tree, no need to look for -1 -2 -3 as you can't be
wrong if you re-fetch from my tree.

> Really, the seq number is not needed, but makes a nice ready
> shorthand for the patch.  Pavel, Endi and I often refer to patches by
> number, like "your patch 0019"  which makes it handy.  The increasing
> seq approach to detect a missing packet works in TCP, so why not for
> us?

Because I am not a machine :)
I see we constantly fail at correctly numbering sequentially stuff,
from new error numbers to OIDs and other stuff, so I do not see this as
a big improvement. I am not saying people shouldn't use this method if
so they prefer, but mandating it seems a bit too much.

Of course if others strongly feel this is the way to go, I will (try to)
comply.

Simo.

-- 
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York