[My reply that the patch won't *look* reversed if the mailing list got
a backwards patch, but 2.1.127 got the patch applied as intended, was
sent via private email in hopes that this thread would go away.]
> To my mind, there's one obvious solution to this whole argument that
> shouldn't be hard to implement: Why not get diff to check the
> timestamps of the files being compared, and issuing a warning if it
> sees it's being asked to create a patch from a new file to an older
> one?
patch would have to apply the timestamps in the patch file itself, which
would make those timestamps unreliable==useless for dependencies. It's
fundamentally a synchronization problem, and which humans implement
semaphores, monitors, or conditional critical sections?
Keith
-- "The avalanche has already started; |Linux: http://www.linuxhq.com |"Zooty, it is too late for the pebbles to |KDE: http://www.kde.org | zoot vote." Kosh, "Believers", Babylon 5 |Keith: kwrohrer@enteract.com | zoot!" www.midwinter.com/lurk/lurker.html |http://www.enteract.com/~kwrohrer | --Rebo- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/