It look like a good thing to me, iff done right. iff.
> > So make one of the patches change extra-version to -errataN or the like.
And the script doing the automatic downloads should refuse to apply
any patch that doesn't change extra-version. When something like this
happens to -ac2, people download it manually and know, it is in fact
-ac3. But here...
> Basically what we're talking about now is someone to maintain an "errata
> tree" -- someone to maintain sub-point releases (2.4.25.1, .2, etc.) and
> to decide what those are.
>
> The other option would be to have it called something like
> 2.4.25-ep36-ep42-ep96 if errata patches 36, 42 and 96 were applied.
>
> I think sub-point releases are better, since it at least cuts down the
> number of possible combinations.
I agree. There should be no point in finer granularity than sub-point
releases. Even those should be kept as small as possible, completely
empty if possible.
Jörn
-- Homo Sapiens is a goal, not a description. -- unknown - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/