From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267378AbUHXUdE (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Aug 2004 16:33:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268276AbUHXUdE (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Aug 2004 16:33:04 -0400 Received: from waste.org ([209.173.204.2]:34707 "EHLO waste.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267378AbUHXUc4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Aug 2004 16:32:56 -0400 Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 15:32:46 -0500 From: Matt Mackall To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.9-rc1 Message-ID: <20040824203246.GF31237@waste.org> References: <20040824184245.GE5414@waste.org> 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 12:23:42PM -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.