Bug #6148: ruby_1_9_3 revision conflict

• Status: Closed
• Assignee: marcandre (Marc-Andre Lafortune)
• Target version: -
• ruby -v: ruby 1.9.3p163 (2012-03-06 revision 34932) [i386-mingw32]

[jonforums (Jon Forums)]

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]

[marcandre (Marc-Andre Lafortune)]

• 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]

[jonforums (Jon Forums)]

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.

[naruse (Yui NARUSE)]

• Status changed from Open to Closed

Generally, people who want to backport should use tool/merger.rb.
It increment patch level.