Re: Versioning of tree

• Previous message: Chris Wright: "[RFC][PATCH] delay rq_lock acquisition in setscheduler"
• Maybe in reply to: Benjamin Herrenschmidt: "Versioning of tree"
• Next in thread: Jeff Garzik: "Re: Versioning of tree"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Date:	Thu, 21 Oct 2004 11:38:06 +1000

On Thu, 2004-10-21 at 00:33, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> Personally, I much rather go the way we have gone, because I don't care
> about module versioning nearly as much as I care about bug-report
> versioning. And if I hear about a bug with 2.6.10-rc1, I want to know that
> it really is at _least_ 2.6.10-rc1, if you see what I mean..

I have the same problem with reports. I'm not talking about -rc*, that
is fine, I know that a report against rc-* means and most user will usually
tell me rc*-bk* so that's ok.

The problem is just with this intermediate state between 2.6.N "final" and
whatever gets next until we go to -rc. The fact that it has the exact same
version as 2.6.N final means that I get confusing reports (and, but I know
you don't care about modules, but it's simply impossible to have both
the "final" modules and the "current top of tree" modules installed at the
same time, which _is_ painful).

When I was still doing my "pmac" tree, what I would do was to put -pre0
in the EXTRAVERSION after a release until I got to -preX or -rcX...

Anyway, it's your call.

Ben.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

• Previous message: Chris Wright: "[RFC][PATCH] delay rq_lock acquisition in setscheduler"
• Maybe in reply to: Benjamin Herrenschmidt: "Versioning of tree"
• Next in thread: Jeff Garzik: "Re: Versioning of tree"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]