| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>, Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)postgres(dot)rocks> |
| Subject: | Re: Password leakage avoidance |
| Date: | 2023-12-24 17:22:01 |
| Message-ID: | 1666851.1703438521@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
> Completely unrelated process bikeshedding:
> I changed the naming scheme I used for the split patch-set this time. I
> don't know if we have a settled/documented pattern for such naming, but
> the original pattern which I borrowed from someone else's patches was
> "vX-NNNN-description.patch".
As far as that goes, that filename pattern is what is generated by
"git format-patch". I agree that the digit-count choices are a tad
odd, but they're not so awful as to be worth trying to override.
> The new pattern I picked is "description-vXXX-NN.patch" which fixes all
> of those issues.
Only if you use the same "description" for all patches of a series,
which seems kind of not the point. In any case, "git format-patch"
is considered best practice for a multi-patch series AFAIK, so we
have to cope with its ideas about how to name the files.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2023-12-24 18:02:01 | Re: Password leakage avoidance |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2023-12-24 17:15:56 | Re: Password leakage avoidance |