Re: ketchup script and 3.0

[Stratos Psomadakis <psomas@ece.ntua.gr>]

On 06/07/2011 11:59 PM, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-06-07 at 13:50 -0700, david@lang.hm wrote:
>> On Tue, 7 Jun 2011, Matt Mackall wrote:
>>
>>> But my point is that if we have adhoc transitions, we will encounter the
>>> "fix all the scripts and websites" pain at every transition. And tools
>>> that are managed via distros and the like can literally take years to
>>> get into the hands of users. It'd be nice if the copy of ketchup shipped
>>> in <enterprise distro> just worked 3 years from now because 4.0 wasn't a
>>> surprise.
>> if you special case 2.4->2.6, and make the default that 4.0 > 3.x, 5.0 > 
>> 4.x, etc won't things 'just work' for the forseeable future?
> No, because you sometimes want to know what 2.6.39++ is and what 3.0--
> is.
>
> For instance, to upgrade from 2.6.37.2 to 3.1.2, ketchup will want to
> download, cache, and apply:
>
> patch-2.6.37.2 (reversed!)
> patch-2.6.38
> patch-2.6.39
> patch-3.0 ?? <- hopefully Linus will make a delta against 2.6.39!
> patch-3.1
> patch-3.1.2
Well, if this is a ketchup-only issue (and there's no other need for
defining at which point major numbers are going to inc), we could find a
solution/workaround (to future-proof it, without the need of constant
updating of the code with every major release), but it'll probably be
uglier, and I think that what Matt proposed is better.

Anyway, when this issue is clarified, I'll try to fix the code, in order
to handle next major releases, without requiring code changes.

Thanks,

-- 
Stratos Psomadakis
<psomas@ece.ntua.gr>