Bug #6148
closed
ruby_1_9_3 revision conflict
Description
Please remember to update the version info when backporting. Currently there are two 1.9.3p163's that can be built from ruby_1_9_3:
ruby 1.9.3p163 (2012-03-06 revision 34932) [i386-mingw32]
ruby 1.9.3p163 (2012-03-14 revision 35012) [i386-mingw32]
Updated by marcandre (Marc-Andre Lafortune) about 13 years ago
- Assignee set to marcandre (Marc-Andre Lafortune)
This is because I backported a small documentation change.
Should the version info be changed in those cases too?
I'm assuming it's ok to backport rdoc changes only, although I see that there was no reply to Eric Hodel's request [ruby-core:40695]
Updated by jonforums (Jon Forums) about 13 years ago
For backport commits, yes. I also believe rdoc-only clarifications are important and worthy of backporting.
IMO it's not a good thing to have the same A.B.Cpxyz revision available at two different points in history, especially on release branches.
Remove committer discretion as to whether a backport commit is worthy of a version bump and keep it clean and simple with a "every backport commit bumps the version" rule. I prefer higher patch numbers to "What flavor of A.B.Cpxyz are we talking about again?" opportunities.
Updated by naruse (Yui NARUSE) about 13 years ago
- Status changed from Open to Closed
Generally, people who want to backport should use tool/merger.rb.
It increment patch level.