Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Tue, 6 Oct 2009 18:40:28 +0200 | | From | Ingo Molnar <> | | Subject | Re: Linux 2.6.32-rc3 |
| |
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Oct 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > Unless: > > > > > _That_ i think is a lot harder to confuse with the real .31 than a > > > v2.6.31-1234-g16123c4 version string. > > > > .. are you saying that it would be just some automatically generated > > thing, just a crippled form of CONFIG_LOCALVERSION_AUTO? Kind of a > > CONFIG_LOCALVERSION_AUTO_SHORTFORM? > > So how about this? > > It changes how CONFIG_LOCALVERSION_AUTO works, in the following trivial > way: > > - if it is set, things work the way they always have, and you get a > extended kernel release like > > 2.6.32-rc3-00052-g0eca52a-dirty > > - but if it is _not_ set, we'll still try to get a version from the > underlying SCM (we actually support git, hg and SVN right now, even if > some comments may say "git only"), and if the underlying SCM says it > has a local version, we append just "+", so you get a version number > like > > 2.6.32-rc3+ > > IOW, you'd never get 2.6.32-rc0, but you'd get either the complex git > version number (or SVN/hg/whatever), or at least "2.6.31+" with the "+" > showing that it is more than plain 2.6.31. > > The "+" could be anything else, of course. The diff is pretty obvious, > you can argue about exactly _what_ you'd like to see as a suffix for > "and then some".
Could we, for consistency's sake, make it:
2.6.32-rc3+00052-g0eca52a-dirty 2.6.32-rc3+
? Or do we want to keep the old version string alone for some reason?
The reason is that i have been confused in the past by having seen something like:
2.6.29-00052-g0eca52a-dirty
and parsing out (in an admittedly weak moment) the gibberish after the first dash. Had it said:
2.6.29+00052-g0eca52a-dirty
i'm sure i'd have noticed that it's not vanilla v2.6.29 - that plus sign stands out like a lightning rod.
Ingo
|  |