Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 5 Nov 2001 15:02:10 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 5 Nov 2001 15:02:00 -0500 Received: from taltos.codesourcery.com ([66.92.14.85]:30339 "EHLO taltos.codesourcery.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 5 Nov 2001 15:01:49 -0500 Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 12:01:43 -0800 From: Zack Weinberg To: Stefan Smietanowski Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: linux-2.2.20a and gcc 3.0 ? Message-ID: <20011105120143.M267@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <20011104192024.H267@codesourcery.com> <3BE68F75.3010300@stesmi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3BE68F75.3010300@stesmi.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Nov 05, 2001 at 02:09:09PM +0100, Stefan Smietanowski wrote: > > I know how it's done, it's just that in my eyes a stable release is the > one where you know there's only 1 .... A 2.95.4 package built on > different days (from CVS) will differ. A 2.95.4 package built on > different ways from a .tar.gz marked as 'release' will not differ. > > For instance chasing a kernel bug is difficult when 1 person might use 1 > version of a compiler and another uses a different version when both > says 2.95.4, no matter how miniscule the difference. Since patches are being applied to the 2.95 branch at a rate of about one a month, I think the date stamp in the version number should be quite sufficient to avoid any problems along these lines. zw - 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/