Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 14 Apr 2003 23:41:06 +0200 | From | Jörn Engel <> | Subject | Re: Oops: ptrace fix buggy |
| |
On Mon, 14 April 2003 15:19:27 -0600, James Bourne wrote: > On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, Jörn Engel wrote: > > > So basically, neither the existing EXTRAVERSION nor my new FIXLEVEL > > are checked. Any code could potentially break with -ac1 to -ac2 or > > with .1 to .2. > > > > Did anyone experience such problems with -ac already? There are far > > more changes in -ac than there are in your patch. > > Which brings the point as to why use a new variable unless you are going to > actually modify LINUX_VERSION_CODE with it. It actually makes more sense to > just use EXTRAVERSION for this then. > > Now, using EXTRAVERSION = .2 wouldn't be unrealistic...
Good point. My two (weak) arguments for the new variable are:
- A fixes-only tree is imo different from any other patchset and should be marked as such. 2.4.20.2 sounds more official than 2.4.20-jb2. Whether this should be underscored for the developers as well - not sure.
- It makes things like 2.4.20.1-je1 easier. But then again, someone will come up with 2.4.21-pre7-ac1-je2-something_else5-even_more.
Sound a little too weak for the extra variable. Could have been a sign that I lost the patch.
Jörn
-- Anything that can go wrong, will. -- Finagle's Law - 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/
| |