Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 24 Aug 2004 15:32:46 -0500 | From | Matt Mackall <> | Subject | Re: Linux 2.6.9-rc1 |
| |
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 12:23:42PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > 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.
Agreed.
> Any reason for your preference?
Less code on my end, mostly. Which is equivalent to less fiddling for people patching manually. Going from x.y.z.4 to x.y.(z+1) requires looping through a bunch more intermediate versions which is tedious for tracking -tip.
-- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time. - 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/
| |