Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 07/03/06 15:34 CST: > Ah, yes, I'd forgotten about that. Just for discussion though, > suppose I'd submitted a patch and found out later some different info > like Upstream Status and wanted to update it. Should the patch > version be bumped if just the header info has changed?
I would say yes. There is no harm in doing it, and anyone who downloaded the previous one will know there is a revised patch. (regardless how trivial) Even if just the header info has changed, I would increment the version. Seems petty, but look at it this way. Say someone downloaded the -1 version and the origin field said "Unknown". Meanwhile you updated the origin field and kept the version the same. The guy who downloaded -1 thinks he has the current patch and spends time revising and/or sending upstream. But it turns out it was already upstream, but he didn't know that because he has an old patch, and had no clue of knowing there was a newer one. Remote, but possible. Why not take every bit of chance out of the equation? My thoughts, anyway. There was just a discussion about this in the last month or so. Some (well, only one person) argued that we shouldn't increment for trivial changes (or changes that occur just a few days after the original was submitted). Tushar came into the discussion with a very firm "the version should be incremented". At least that is what I remember from the discussion. -- Randy rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.27] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686] 15:35:00 up 52 days, 7:35, 1 user, load average: 0.12, 0.08, 0.03 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
