Re: [ethtool PATCH] ethtool: Add Direct Attach to the available connector ports

[Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1493 bytes --]

On Sun, 2009-11-29 at 05:42 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
[...]
> I've been trying to think of what would be a good versioning scheme for 
> ethtool.  Even though it is [essentially] a user-friendly kernel 
> interface, its releases have never really been closely synchronized with 
> the kernel releases.  And unlike a lot of other software, ethtool is so 
> simple it does not really go through any release-candidate or beta period.
> 
> The current scheme just increments a release number: 5->6, 6->7, etc. 
> But with so few kernel releases (and thus ethtool releases), I was 
> leaning towards either yearly release naming ("ethtool-2009"), kernel 
> release naming ("ethtool-2.6.33"), or the release scheme proposed for 
> glibc:  snapshot directly from the git repository.
>
> If people want one, I could do a release right now.  Or, we could move 
> to an alternate scheme like git snapshots.  I think git snapshots are 
> viable because ethtool has historically had next to zero bugs in the 
> actual userland utility.  Fedora already imports git snapshots, for example.

So does Debian.  But this is because we need to include the new
features, not because we like using snapshots.

> Preferences?

I think it should be based on kernel versions, so that it's clear
whether a given ethtool version supports the features introduced in a
given kernel version.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Quantity is no substitute for quality, but it's the only one we've got.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 828 bytes --]