Re: Linux 2.6.9-rc1

[Martin J. Bligh]

--Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/