Re: Linux 2.6.32-rc3

[Ingo Molnar]

* Theodore Tso <tytso@xxxxxxx> 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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/