Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 6 Oct 2009 20:24:48 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: Linux 2.6.32-rc3 |
| |
* Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 06:40:28PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > 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? > > I'm a bit concerned that changing from what we've currently had: > > > 2.6.29-00052-g0eca52a-dirty > > might break some packaging scripts. [...]
( Sidenote: such scripts might as well need fixing then, even without any upstream changes - adding a localversion file to the top level directory (which many out of tree projects do) would possibly break them as well. )
> [...] I'm also personally used to that naming scheme; in fact at the > moment I'm using 2.6.32-rc1-00292-gb0390e2. :-)
Yeah, i'm pretty happy with auto-localversion as well and use it everywhere. What i suggested is a small tweak to that: to make it more clear what people get during the merge window - when the string says "2.6.31-00292-gb0390e2". Plus a small tweak to the non-auto-localversion naming: to make the uname output more clear when people disable the auto-localversion option:
Linux europe 2.6.31+ #2 SMP Tue Oct 6 19:26:58 CEST 2009 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
versus the inaccurate:
Linux europe 2.6.31 #2 SMP Tue Oct 6 19:26:58 CEST 2009 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
string which we emit today.
Ingo
| |