Issue #6148 has been updated by 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.


----------------------------------------
Bug #6148: ruby_1_9_3 revision conflict
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/6148#change-24585

Author: Jon Forums
Status: Open
Priority: Normal
Assignee: Marc-Andre Lafortune
Category: core
Target version: 
ruby -v: ruby 1.9.3p163 (2012-03-06 revision 34932) [i386-mingw32]


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]


-- 
http://bugs.ruby-lang.org/