files/patch-* pathname separators

[Eivind Eklund]

On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 02:30:24PM +0200, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> Maxim Sobolev <sobomax at portaone.com> writes:
> > I disagree. `::' is pretty harmless, I never had any problems due to
> > it. And, yes, I use bash as my primary shell.
> 
> Seconded.  I like the :: convention, and David seems to be the only
> one to have a problem with it.

I also tend to like the ::-convention, as it is the same separator as
used in various programming languages (Ruby, Perl, C++, etc) and thus
already is in the "separator" slot in my mind.  However, in private mail
David referred to a previous discussion that he said had resulted in a
decision against it.  Is there anybody out there that agree with David
in this?

I'd really ike to document *something* as the canonical form - and that
shouldn't be "patch-aa".  If the consensus is that this should use :: as
a separator, I'm very happy with that - and if it is that it should be
+, I'm more happy with that than with variation :-)

Eivind.