Return-path: Received: from mail-qw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.216.46]:54366 "EHLO mail-qw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756530Ab1DFSt0 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Apr 2011 14:49:26 -0400 Received: by qwk3 with SMTP id 3so1060856qwk.19 for ; Wed, 06 Apr 2011 11:49:25 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1302099854.14995.115.camel@wwguy-huron> References: <1301945671.14995.110.camel@wwguy-huron> <20110406141258.GA11941@tuxdriver.com> <1302099870.4090.3.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> <20110406142711.GB11941@tuxdriver.com> <1302099854.14995.115.camel@wwguy-huron> From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E1bor_Stefanik?= Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 20:49:05 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: new maintenance release of iwlwifi 1000 uCode available To: "Guy, Wey-Yi" Cc: "John W. Linville" , Johannes Berg , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Guy, Wey-Yi wrote: > On Wed, 2011-04-06 at 07:27 -0700, John W. Linville wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 04:24:30PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: >> > On Wed, 2011-04-06 at 10:12 -0400, John W. Linville wrote: >> > > On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 12:34:31PM -0700, Guy, Wey-Yi wrote: >> > > > Hi, >> > > > >> > > > ? ? ? ? Maintenance release version 39.31.5.1 of uCode for Intel 1000BGN >> > > > ? ? ? ? Series >> > > > ? ? ? ? WiFi Adapter is now available for download from >> > > > ? ? ? ? http://intellinuxwireless.org/?n=Downloads >> > > > >> > > > ? ? ? ? Changes: >> > > > ? ? ? ? - Fix "tid mismatch" issue >> > > > >> > > > ? ? ? ? Wey-Yi >> > > >> > > Hmmm...the previous release was 128.50.3.1... >> > > >> > > I realize that the API portion advanced from 3.1 to 5.1, but the >> > > overall release number appears to be moving backwards. ?Is this >> > > intentional? >> > >> > They're all over the place and basically random ... I *think* they >> > depend on the branch it comes from internally, but I'm not even sure. >> >> OK, I can cope. ?But if you (i.e. your team) can influence them >> towards a sane numbering scheme, it will probably make packagers >> and/or release engineers happier in the distros... >> > I will give feedback to our build engineer team, thanks > > Wey > Perhaps formatting the number as "3.1.128.50" and "5.1.39.31" would be a saner idea. -- Vista: [V]iruses, [I]ntruders, [S]pyware, [T]rojans and [A]dware. :-)