Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 6 Oct 2009 17:36:32 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: Linux 2.6.32-rc3 |
| |
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Oct 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > We can ignore that and say "hehe, you dont understand non-linear > > trees and ran git remote update blindly, too bad for you", or we > > might do something to make things more transparent and reduce the > > confusion. > > You are missing the point. > > The only thing we can do is to teach people that the Makefile version > isn't too important, and that it really doesn't tell very much. > > Trying to tweak it to make it somehow "more meaningful" is a BAD > THING, because it continues to spoon-feed people a lie. > > The cake is a lie. In between kernel versions, you can't rely on the > Makefile. You should teach yourself (and others) THAT, rather than > trying to teach people to believe the lie even more. > > Once you start believing the lie, suddenly all the subtrees will start > thinking that now _their_ kernel versions are bad, so now they'll > start to want to make the same idiotic changes to their Makefiles, or > maybe they'll decide that they don't want to pull tagged releases, but > the "one after the tag so that they'll get the updated Makefile". > > And even if they don't do that idiocy, the whole "the version number > is meaningful outside of releases" thing leads to brain damage.
hm, i think you ignored (or missed, or found irrelevant) my first suggested variant:
v2.6.31 v2.6.31+ v2.6.32-rc1 v2.6.32-rc1+ .. v2.6.32-rc9 v2.6.32-rc9+ v2.6.32
The '+' sign says that it's more than .31.
That defuses the 'lie' of trying to linerize a multi-thousand-node graph down into some catchy human-readable string pretty efficiently i think. It doesnt tell us precisely what that '+' means - it could be goodness or it could be badness.
_That_ i think is a lot harder to confuse with the real .31 than a v2.6.31-1234-g16123c4 version string.
My tweak #2, adding -rc0 indeed brings in problems, it's too artificial to do it right after .31 gets released - and if we dont do it then we cannot do it later either. (so we cannot really do it)
[ It might bring in some advantages too btw. A pull request to you for a tree that is -rc0 based means it got rebased straight in the merge window => bad. Such a thing would be apparent at a glance. 'Good' trees should be based on some known good version of the previous stable kernel cycle. ]
Ingo
| |