From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S268196AbUHXSmz (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:42:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268206AbUHXSmz (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:42:55 -0400 Received: from waste.org ([209.173.204.2]:53462 "EHLO waste.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S268196AbUHXSmx (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:42:53 -0400 Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 13:42:45 -0500 From: Matt Mackall To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.9-rc1 Message-ID: <20040824184245.GE5414@waste.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 12:49:24AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Administrative trivia, and one thing I agonized over: should I make the > patches relative to 2.6.8 or 2.6.8.1? I decided that since there is > nothing that says that a "basic bug-fix" releases for a previous release > might not happen _after_ we've done a -rc release for the next version, I > can't sanely do patches against a bugfix release. > > Thus the 2.6.9-rc1 patch is against plain 2.6.8. If you have 2.6.8.1, you > need to undo the .1 patch, and apply the big one. BK users and tar-balls > don't see that particular confusion, of course ;) 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. -- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.