From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S268220AbUHXTZw (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Aug 2004 15:25:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268219AbUHXTZu (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Aug 2004 15:25:50 -0400 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:55447 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S268229AbUHXTXs (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Aug 2004 15:23:48 -0400 Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 12:23:42 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Matt Mackall cc: Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.9-rc1 In-Reply-To: <20040824184245.GE5414@waste.org> Message-ID: References: <20040824184245.GE5414@waste.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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? Linus