lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Oct]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: 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


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-10-06 18:53    [W:0.025 / U:0.584 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site