From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267314AbUHXTyi (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Aug 2004 15:54:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268246AbUHXTyi (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Aug 2004 15:54:38 -0400 Received: from mail.enyo.de ([212.9.189.167]:52490 "EHLO mail.enyo.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267314AbUHXTyg (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Aug 2004 15:54:36 -0400 To: Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.9-rc1 References: <20040824184245.GE5414@waste.org> From: Florian Weimer Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 21:54:33 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Linus Torvalds's message of "Tue, 24 Aug 2004 12:23:42 -0700 (PDT)") Message-ID: <871xhwb9c6.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Linus Torvalds: > 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. It would be slightly more consistent to diff .2 against .1 because this is what already happens when a new x.y.z release is published.