Re: Should SUBLEVEL be removed for 3.x ?

[Jesper Juhl]

On Sun, 10 Jul 2011, Randy Dunlap wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 00:07:13 +0200 (CEST) Jesper Juhl wrote:
> 
> > Hi
> > 
> > If the plan is that the new kernel is going to be 3.0 (3.x) and the 
> > -stable kernels then get to tack on a third digit with EXTRAVERSION, then 
> > it seems to me that the main Makefile should get rid of SUBLEVEL - or?
> > 
> > Or is the plan to ditch EXTRAVERSION for -stable kernels and have them use 
> > SUBLEVEL instead?
> > 
> > There are a few scripts that need fixing if SUBLEVEL goes the way of the 
> > Dodo, but I didn't want to start fixing those without a clear indication 
> > of whether or not SUBLEVEL is going to/should die.
> > 
> > So what's going to happen to SUBLEVEL/EXTRAVERSION?
> 
> I cannot answer this, but I'd certainly like to see a clear answer
> since I also have several scripts that need such attention.
> 
And besides our own personal scriots there's also stuff like
	scripts/patch-kernel and Documentation/kbuild/makefiles.txt
that need updating.

-- 
Jesper Juhl <jj@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>       http://www.chaosbits.net/
Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please.

--
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/