Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 7 Jun 2011 14:33:53 -0700 | Subject | Re: ketchup script and 3.0 | From | "Randy Dunlap" <> |
| |
On Tue, June 7, 2011 2:22 pm, Stratos Psomadakis wrote: > On 06/07/2011 11:59 PM, Matt Mackall wrote: >> On Tue, 2011-06-07 at 13:50 -0700, david@lang.hm wrote: >>> On Tue, 7 Jun 2011, Matt Mackall wrote: >>> >>>> But my point is that if we have adhoc transitions, we will encounter >>>> the >>>> "fix all the scripts and websites" pain at every transition. And tools >>>> that are managed via distros and the like can literally take years to >>>> get into the hands of users. It'd be nice if the copy of ketchup >>>> shipped >>>> in <enterprise distro> just worked 3 years from now because 4.0 wasn't >>>> a >>>> surprise. >>> if you special case 2.4->2.6, and make the default that 4.0 > 3.x, 5.0 >>> > >>> 4.x, etc won't things 'just work' for the forseeable future? >> No, because you sometimes want to know what 2.6.39++ is and what 3.0-- >> is. >> >> For instance, to upgrade from 2.6.37.2 to 3.1.2, ketchup will want to >> download, cache, and apply: >> >> patch-2.6.37.2 (reversed!) >> patch-2.6.38 >> patch-2.6.39 >> patch-3.0 ?? <- hopefully Linus will make a delta against 2.6.39! >> patch-3.1 >> patch-3.1.2 > Well, if this is a ketchup-only issue (and there's no other need for > defining at which point major numbers are going to inc), we could find a > solution/workaround (to future-proof it, without the need of constant > updating of the code with every major release), but it'll probably be > uglier, and I think that what Matt proposed is better.
It's also an issue for scripts/patch-kernel, unless I decide to just kill (drop) it.
> Anyway, when this issue is clarified, I'll try to fix the code, in order > to handle next major releases, without requiring code changes.
-- ~Randy
| |