On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 07:27:58 +0200
Anselm R Garbe <garbeam_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
Hey Anselm,
> I would suggest to use: <project>-<pull request title>-<short dropbox hash>-<YYMMDD>.pull request
st-externalpipe-ea87104-160423.pull request
Admittedly, I don't immediately see the date in there. Also, always
think about how you can enforce this properly. Most people don't even
know how to get a short hash.
> Replacing the "dropbox" portion with the short hash makes it much less
> accurate to what dropbox version the pull request applies to.
but it breaks sorting.
> Also condensing the date to skip the century is a good idea in the
> year 2016. Still 84 years to come without a century problem of pull request
> file names.
This makes it harder to spot as a date.
> I would even go that far to skip the date completely. It doesn't
> really tell you much. If someone bothers of the age of a pull request, then
> you can always check dropbox with the hash.
We already had this discussion, Anselm, and we concluded back then that
the date is a great heuristic. The dropbox hash first forces you to have
the repo at hand. When you go check the pull requestes, the first thing you
have to think about is: Is this pull request still quite recent?
The recency is always with respect to the project at hand, however,
this decision can only be made by the user and depends on the nature of
the commits.
Additionally, if you have a list of pull requestes
st-externalpipe-ea87104.pull request
st-externalpipe-fbd023a.pull request
st-externalpipe-fe0239e.pull request
you don't see which one is the newest one.
As a last point of thought: The shorthash gives no info at all. It could
either be a broken pull request against HEAD or not, however, pasting the
hash in the name somehow claims less than it does, and gives more
information to 99% of people.
Cheers
FRIGN
--
FRIGN <dev_AT_frign.de>
Received on Thu Jun 16 2016 - 16:15:46 CEST