Kevin Krumwiede wrote:
> Instead of patch.2.4.8.xfs.2001-08-15.bz2, for example, it would be more
> conventional to call it linux-2.4.8.xfs-2001-08-15.patch.bz2.
>
> I don't know if this is officially recommended by anything, I just know that
> most every patch I've encountered follows this convention.
Who knows where it came from.... the weight of history is behind it.
:-) Next time I look at the script that generates the patches, I could
change it - your suggestion does seem more intuitive.
-Eric
--
Eric Sandeen XFS for Linux http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs
sandeen@xxxxxxx SGI, Inc.
|