Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 07 Jun 2011 23:32:25 +0300 | From | Stratos Psomadakis <> | Subject | Re: ketchup script and 3.0 |
| |
On 06/07/2011 11:10 PM, Matt Mackall wrote: > On Tue, 2011-06-07 at 22:48 +0300, Stratos Psomadakis wrote: >> On 06/07/2011 03:53 PM, Matt Mackall wrote: >>> On Tue, 2011-06-07 at 08:40 +0100, Frank Kingswood wrote: >>>> Hi! >>>> >>>> With Linux 3.0 approaching rapidly, is the ketchup script known to work? >>>> It has this tempting <ver> parameter but I've always passed in "2.6" there. >>> It's on its third maintainer now and I've already forgotten the name of >>> the new guy. >> It's me :P >> >> I uploaded the ketchup code at github, and added some code to handle 3.x >> versions, but I've not tested it very much, so it's still in a separate >> branch. [1] >> You can check it out/test it, if you want. If it works without problems, >> when linux-3.0 gets released, I'll tag a new version of ketchup and >> notify distro maintainers to upgrade their packages. > I took a brief glance at your changes. You'll probably want to teach it > that 2.6.39++ == 3.0 so that people can seamlessly move back and forth > between the two ranges. This wasn't something that made sense across the > 2.4/2.6 transition. > > Oh, wait, maybe I've spotted the code for this. > > Thinking ahead just a bit, it'd be nice if we could just declare in > advance that 3.9++ == 4.0. If we're going to bump the major number at > arbitrary points, that's the most obvious one. It's approximately 3 > years out at the current rate which seems like a good pace. Then tools > like ketchup and other tools that handle these version numbers could > just do all this once. > > Linus? Yeap, that would be nice, indeed. Otherwise, ketchup code (and other tools probably) will get uglier and uglier as major numbers advance, and I made it look ugly already (although this is probably 'thinking way into the future').
-- Stratos Psomadakis <psomas@ece.ntua.gr>
| |