I have a standard format for patchnames: 1234-99.project.brief-description.patch, where 1234 is the issue number and 99 is the (expected) comment number. However, it involves two copy-pastes: one for the issue number, taken from my browser, and one for the project name, taken from my command line prompt.
Some automation of this is clearly possible, especially as I usually name my git branches 1234-brief-description. More automation is less typing, and so in true XKCD condiment-passing style, I've now written that script, which you can find on github as dorgpatch. (The hardest part was thinking of a good name, and as you can see, in the end I gave up.)
Out of the components of the patch name, the issue number and description can be deduced from the current git branch, and the project from the current folder. For the comment number, a bit more work is needed: but drupal.org now has a public API, so a simple REST request to that gives us data about the issue node including the comment count.
So far, so good: we can generate the filename for a new patch. But really, the script should take care of doing the diff too. That's actually the trickiest part: figuring out which branch to diff against. It requires a bit of git branch wizardry to look at the branches that the current branch forks off from, and some regular expression matching to find one that looks like a Drupal development branch (i.e., 8.x-4.x, or 8.0.x). It's probably not perfect; I don't know if I accounted for a possibility such as 8.x-4.x branching off a 7.x-3.x which then has no further commits and so is also reachable from the feature branch.
The other thing this script can do is create a tests-only patch. These are useful, and generally advisable on drupal.org issues, to demonstrate that the test not only checks for the correct behaviour, but also fails for the problem that's being fixed. The script assumes that you have two branches: the one you're on, 1234-brief-description, and also one called 1234-tests, which contains only commits that change tests.
The git workflow to get to that point would be:
- Create the branch 1234-brief-description
- Make commits to fix the bug
- Create a branch 1234-tests
- Make commits to tests (I assume most people are like me, and write the tests after the fix)
- Move the string of commits that are only tests so they fork off at the same point as the feature branch: git rebase --onto 8.x-4.x 1234-brief-description 1234-tests
- Go back to 1234-brief-description and do: git merge 1234-tests, so the feature branch includes the tests.
- If you need to do further work on the tests, you can repeat with a temporary branch that you rebase onto the tip of 1234-tests. (Or you can cherry-pick the commits. Or do cherry-pick with git rev-list, which is a trick I discovered today.)
Next step will be having the script make an interdiff file, which is a task I find particularly fiddly.