On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Anyway, I'm not so bothered about this, just interested in the motivations
> behind it which you've now provided.
I'll be happy to go with the expected behaviour on LFS, if not
separating date changes is expected, particularly if there is concern
about wasting scarce revision numbers :) Just need to remember which
book I'm editing.
Maybe I can recover a couple of revision numbers, at least for the
udev_update branch, if I put the 2.6.16.1 kernel, the somewhat
consequential change to iproute2 (the name suggests it might be a bad
idea to upgrade to iproute2-2.6.16 with an older kernel), and the
totally unrelated udev update into a single revision.
OK, I jest about making a multi-item revision, but sometimes I haven't
been aware of expected procedures (another reason to edit the editors'
guide re branches), and sometimes current practice evolves.
Ken
--
das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-book
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
