Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:22:34 -0700 | | From | "Martin J. Bligh" <> | | Subject | Re: Linux 2.6.9-rc1 |
| |
--Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> wrote (on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 12:23:42 -0700): > 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. > > Any reason for your preference?
>From an automated tool point of view, it's easier to build a kernel with just tarball + 1 patch (I have much the same issues as Matt to deal with) ... also it works the same way as the current -rc releases, etc, so it's consistent.
M.
- 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/
|  |