Re: ketchup script and 3.0

["Randy Dunlap" <rdunlap@xenotime.net>]

On Tue, June 7, 2011 2:22 pm, Stratos Psomadakis wrote:
> 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.

It's also an issue for scripts/patch-kernel, unless I decide
to just kill (drop) it.

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



-- 
~Randy