Updating patch headers
bruce.dubbs at gmail.com
Sun Jul 9 07:27:05 PDT 2006
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> 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.
Sorry to take so long in getting back, but I'm now able to participate more.
Yes, we have evolved a standard on patches where *any* change (as in a
different md5 sum) needs a different patch version number. We also need
an updated patch version number if the base package changes and still
needs the patch.
More information about the blfs-dev