From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthieu Moy Subject: Re: On git 1.6 (novice's opinion) Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 09:42:30 +0200 Message-ID: References: <49D329A0.10769.2C57DE@Ulrich.Windl.rkdvmks1.ngate.uni-regensburg.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Dmitry Potapov , git@vger.kernel.org To: "Ulrich Windl" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Apr 01 09:49:22 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LovCM-0008IM-2E for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 01 Apr 2009 09:49:22 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759820AbZDAHrv (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Apr 2009 03:47:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759680AbZDAHrv (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Apr 2009 03:47:51 -0400 Received: from imag.imag.fr ([129.88.30.1]:61652 "EHLO imag.imag.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759573AbZDAHrv (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Apr 2009 03:47:51 -0400 Received: from mail-veri.imag.fr (mail-veri.imag.fr [129.88.43.52]) by imag.imag.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n317i9jc023608 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 1 Apr 2009 09:44:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from bauges.imag.fr ([129.88.43.5]) by mail-veri.imag.fr with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32) (Exim 4.50) id 1Lov5i-0006Kj-Oo; Wed, 01 Apr 2009 09:42:30 +0200 Received: from moy by bauges.imag.fr with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Lov5i-00076S-MT; Wed, 01 Apr 2009 09:42:30 +0200 In-Reply-To: <49D329A0.10769.2C57DE@Ulrich.Windl.rkdvmks1.ngate.uni-regensburg.de> (Ulrich Windl's message of "Wed\, 01 Apr 2009 08\:45\:19 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/23.0.91 (gnu/linux) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (imag.imag.fr [129.88.30.1]); Wed, 01 Apr 2009 09:44:09 +0200 (CEST) X-IMAG-MailScanner-Information: Please contact MI2S MIM for more information X-IMAG-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-IMAG-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-IMAG-MailScanner-From: moy@imag.fr Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: "Ulrich Windl" writes: > If you compiled a Linux kernel, then do an "upgrade" to the tree, it's quite > likely that a "make clean" after that upgrade does something different to the > "make clean" before the upgrade. Thus I'd "make clean" before the upgrade. (which, > I think, proves my point) But why do a "make clean", at all? -- Matthieu