Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932638AbZJFRq0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Oct 2009 13:46:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757777AbZJFRq0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Oct 2009 13:46:26 -0400 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:33508 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758050AbZJFRqZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Oct 2009 13:46:25 -0400 Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.32-rc3 From: Dirk Hohndel To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Ingo Molnar , Len Brown , Linux Kernel Mailing List In-Reply-To: References: <1254797502.14122.146.camel@dhohndel-mobl.amr.corp.intel.com> <20091006144449.GA23078@elte.hu> <20091006153632.GA29795@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Intel Open Source Technology Center Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 10:45:32 -0700 Message-Id: <1254851132.24117.30.camel@dhohndel-mobl.amr.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.3 (2.26.3-1.fc11) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by bombadil.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1548 Lines: 40 On Tue, 2009-10-06 at 09:31 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Tue, 6 Oct 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > Unless: > > > > > _That_ i think is a lot harder to confuse with the real .31 than a > > > v2.6.31-1234-g16123c4 version string. > > > > .. are you saying that it would be just some automatically generated > > thing, just a crippled form of CONFIG_LOCALVERSION_AUTO? Kind of a > > CONFIG_LOCALVERSION_AUTO_SHORTFORM? That's much better than what I had suggested - and it would work for your case with multiple trees in a sane manner as well. > IOW, you'd never get 2.6.32-rc0, but you'd get either the complex git > version number (or SVN/hg/whatever), or at least "2.6.31+" with the "+" > showing that it is more than plain 2.6.31. > > The "+" could be anything else, of course. The diff is pretty obvious, you > can argue about exactly _what_ you'd like to see as a suffix for "and then > some". The argument by Stefan Richter that '+' is already used informally as "or later" is somewhat valid - maybe we could use an ampersand (which originally stood for 'et cetera' - and other things). But then I don't know if that would confuse tons of scripts as the & has lots of other meanings in various scripting languages. -- Dirk Hohndel Intel Open Source Technology Center -- 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/