Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Linux 2.6.9-rc1 | From | Josh Boyer <> | Date | Tue, 24 Aug 2004 15:13:22 -0500 |
| |
On Tue, 2004-08-24 at 14:54, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Linus Torvalds: > > > On Tue, 24 Aug 2004, Matt Mackall wrote: > >> > >> Phew, I was worried about that. Can I get a ruling on how you intend > >> to handle a x.y.z.1 to x.y.z.2 transition? I've got a tool that I'm > >> looking to unbreak. My preference would be for all x.y.z.n patches to > >> be relative to x.y.z. > > > > Hmm.. I have no strong preferences. There _is_ obviously a well-defined > > ordering from x.y.z.1 -> x.y.z.2 (unlike the -rcX releases that don't have > > any ordering wrt the bugfixes), so either interdiffs or whole new full > > diffs are totally "logical". We just have to chose one way or the other, > > and I don't actually much care. > > It would be slightly more consistent to diff .2 against .1 because > this is what already happens when a new x.y.z release is published.
Yes, but the -rcX releases aren't done that way. It's mostly how you view things. From a users point of view, do I want to download x.y.z and apply patches .1 through .N? Or do I want to download x.y.z and apply 1 patch to get me to the x.y.z.N level?
Personally, I prefer the "one patch to rule them all" method. :)
josh
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |