16
also i was just thinking..
the 1st patch after a final release obviously contains fixes to files in the final release.
the 2nd patch released should only contain files changed from the previous patch and not contain all files that weren't edited in the new patch.. i can see some arguments arising tho with this comment.. i'll try to break it down.
final release:
patch 1 contains 5 edited files (file 1, file 2, file 3, file 4 and file 5)
patch 2 contains 6 files that were fixed. 3 of these fixes include edits to files done from patch 1.
file 1, file 2 & file 3.. file 6, 7 & 8 are newly fixed
so the patch 2 should include fixes from patch 1 (file 1, 2 & 3)combined with the new fixes.
patch 3 released containing only 4 files that were fixed and non of them were files that were from patch 1 or 2. so we have file 9, 10, 11 & 12... this patch should only contain the new edited files and not the previous patched files because they weren't changed from the previous patch.
patch 4 released and contains 6 fixed files. non of those were files belonging to patch 3 but 2 were files from patches 1 & 2.. so we have File 1, File 2, File 13, 14, 15, 16.
file 1 & 2 should contain the fixes from patch 2 (as they include fixes from patch 1) 13, 14, 15 & 16 are new.. we don't need to touch files 3 - 12 as they weren't touched in this fix. so they weren't in this patch
this although would make it so that you have to apply all patches as they come out.. ok nothing wrong there.. but if each patch contains all files from previous patches, those who have hacked their sites (which may include hacking of files in the patches) would have to keep redoing their hacks.. if the patch only contains the fixed files for that particular patch, then the user would only have to hack those files again instead of having to rehack all the others again) (have i said that clear enough? or have i confused you)