Re: Linux 2.6.9-rc1

[Matt Mackall]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/