From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S268350AbUHXVZP (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Aug 2004 17:25:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268347AbUHXVZN (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Aug 2004 17:25:13 -0400 Received: from jade.spiritone.com ([216.99.193.136]:38365 "EHLO jade.spiritone.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S268332AbUHXVW5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Aug 2004 17:22:57 -0400 Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:22:34 -0700 From: "Martin J. Bligh" To: Linus Torvalds , Matt Mackall cc: Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.9-rc1 Message-ID: <64420000.1093382553@[10.10.2.4]> In-Reply-To: References: <20040824184245.GE5414@waste.org> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.1 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --Linus Torvalds wrote (on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 12:23:42 -0700): > 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. > > Any reason for your preference? >>From an automated tool point of view, it's easier to build a kernel with just tarball + 1 patch (I have much the same issues as Matt to deal with) ... also it works the same way as the current -rc releases, etc, so it's consistent. M.