Re: Linux

From: Matt Mackall
Date: Wed Mar 09 2005 - 19:06:06 EST

On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 12:11:02PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On St 09-03-05 09:52:46, Marcos D. Marado Torres wrote:
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Greg KH wrote:
> >
> > >which is a patch against the release. If consensus arrives
> > >that this patch should be against the 2.6.11 tree, it will be done that
> > >way in the future.
> >
> > IMHO it sould be against 2.6.11 and not, like -rc's that are'nt
> > againt
> > the last -rc but against 2.6.x.
> You expect people to go through all,, ... . That
> means .11.2 should be relative to .11.1, because otherwise people will
> have to revert (ugly). And you want people to track -stable kernels as
> fast as possible.

There are three ways we can do this:

a) all 2.6.x.y are diffs against 2.6.x
b) interdiffs for .1, .2, etc. with 2.6.x+1 diffed against 2.6.x
c) interdiffs and 2.6.12 is a diff against 2.6.11.last

Imagine we want to go from to 2.6.12

case a)
revert patch
get and apply 2.6.12

case b)
revert patch
revert patch
revert patch
get and apply 2.6.12

case c)
poke around on and figure out that the last kernel in .11 is .11.5
get and apply
get and apply
get and apply 2.6.12

Note this gets increasingly more painful in cases b and c when there
are a large number of post-releases. And case c) is really stupid when
you want to go from 2.6.12 to 2.6.11.

Also note that -pre, -rc, -bk, -mm, -ac, and every other branch off a
release has worked the a) way.

Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at