Re: Linux

From: Bill Davidsen
Date: Fri Mar 11 2005 - 13:50:11 EST

Matt Mackall wrote:
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

Would anyone actually do that? About the time of the first patch usually do something like:
cd linux-2.6.11
cp -rl . ../linux-
cd $_
bzcat ../Patches/patch- | patch -p1
make oldconfig

By doing copy with links for all unchanged files you use virtually no extra space for each revision, and that encourages creating a separate tree for testing patches from -ck, or -ac, or Nick.

I use it to compile with various options as well, I usually build test versions for P-II, P-III, P4-HT and Athlon depending on what I'm testing.

-bill davidsen (davidsen@xxxxxxx)
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
last possible moment - but no longer" -me
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