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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 15 2003 - 22:00:33 EST