On Mon, 2007-12-10 at 13:01 -0800, Tom Eastep wrote:
> Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > For anyone out there actually using the tarball releases however,
> > cumulative patches would result in more work, if they are tracking the
> > code closely. After all, the new patch doesn't just apply cleanly. The
> > old one(s) need to be reverted first, to apply the latest fixes.
>
> The tarballs are so small that anyone using them would undoubtedly just
> download the updated tarball.
Well, I once applied a patch, that fixed inline Shell code in the params
file. On the other hand, however, I always have been using your vanilla
RPMs, rather than the tarballs.
> > The GNOME project for example offers a diff between each release and its
> > predecessor (if any) of the same $MAJOR.$MINOR version.
>
> Shorewall has always done that as well.
So we got the answer to the question, no? :)
> Maybe I should just avoid this whole issue just by never adding new features
> in dot releases. [...]
By that you mean the third number, $MICRO, rather than the tiny-fix
forth number? I seem to recall, that has been your plan more than once
already. ;-)
Karsten
--
[ESR] Eric S. Raymond: "How To Ask Questions The Smart Way"
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
[SGT] Simon G. Tatham: "How to Report Bugs Effectively"
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
It's the best place to buy or sell services for
just about anything Open Source.
http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php
_______________________________________________
Shorewall-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shorewall-devel
