patch-2.6.9 against 2.6.8.1

* patch-2.6.9 against 2.6.8.1
@ 2004-10-19  7:23 T. Weyergraf
  2004-10-19  7:38 ` Buddy Lucas
  2004-10-19 16:43 ` Jesper Juhl
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: T. Weyergraf @ 2004-10-19  7:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel; +Cc: kirk

Hi all,

I just build 2.6.9 using the patch-2.6.9, as always. Previously,
I was using 2.6.8.1 and i expected patch-2.6.9 to work on the
2.6.8.1 tree.
The patch-2.6.9 is somewhat "confused". Against 2.6.8.1, it fails
to change the SUBLEVEL field:

<snip>
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 VERSION = 2
 PATCHLEVEL = 6
-SUBLEVEL = 8
+SUBLEVEL = 9
 EXTRAVERSION =
 NAME=Zonked Quokka
</snip>

As one can see, the patch failes, since in 2.6.8.1, EXTRAVERSION is set
to 1. Also, patch-2.6.9 contains the small fixes in fs/nfs/file.c, that
were given in patch-2.6.8.1.

Is this the desired behaviour ? Based on the past, i expected new
patches to go against the latest stable kernel ( which is reported
2.6.8.1 by kernel.org ). Will - in the future - new patches skip the
4-digit kernelpatches ?

I do not intent to start a flamewar over whether 4-digit kernelreleases
are the right/wrong way to go. I am just looking for a consistent
behaviour, which is at this point only given, if you expect new
kernelreleases to go against the last 3-digit release.

Is that so ?

Regards,
Thomas Weyergraf

-- 
Thomas Weyergraf                                     kirk@colinet.de
Funny IA64 Opcode Dept: ( see arch/ia64/lib/memset.S )
"br.ret.spnt.few" - got back from getting beer, did not spend a lot.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread