From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <45E15EB4.6090107@domain.hid> Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 11:02:28 +0100 From: Jan Kiszka MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <45D9DF65.9000300@domain.hid> <45D9E59B.8040002@domain.hid> <45E0AF7F.1070506@domain.hid> In-Reply-To: <45E0AF7F.1070506@domain.hid> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig07948FE775B81D92B37E8470" Sender: jan.kiszka@domain.hid Subject: [Xenomai-core] Re: RT-Socket-CAN versioning List-Id: "Xenomai life and development \(bug reports, patches, discussions\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Wolfgang Grandegger Cc: xenomai-core This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig07948FE775B81D92B37E8470 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: > Hi Jan, >=20 > Jan Kiszka wrote: >> Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: >>> Hi Jan, >>> >>> currently the RT-Socket-CAN drivers maintains it's own version or >>> release number. As RT-Socket-CAN is part of Xenomai, I do not see the= >>> need for it (and so far I did not update it). What is the intended us= e >>> of "driver_version" in "struct rtdm_device"? >> >> Actually, I was thinking about this too yesterday. The idea of the >> separate versioning for RTDM drivers is to signal the users if somethi= ng >> in the driver really changed. It's fairly obvious what to do with it f= or >> out-of-tree drivers, but for in-tree it might be worth considering the= >> policy. >> >> The current model, maintained more or less properly for the existing >> drivers, is to increment independently of Xenomai according to major o= r >> minor changes. One may ease this burden for the driver developer by >> simply filling in Xenomai's version here. That would just let the >> revisions increase on every Xenomai release, even if the driver remain= ed >> untouched. The tag would still have a meaning for out-of-tree drivers,= >> but for in-tree it would be fairly meaningless. >> >> Well, whatever is commonly preferred, it should then be applied >> consistently on all RTDM drivers in Xenomai. What are the opinions on >> this list (I will comment afterwards)? >=20 > OK, no other opinions so far. Then let's keep the current versioning I guess everyone's busy with more serious issues. > scheme. I'm going to boost the RT-Socket-CAN version number to 0.90.0 > with the next commit and to 1.0.0 for the next official release (2.4.x?= ). Ack. That's preferred from my side as well. Jan --------------enig07948FE775B81D92B37E8470 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFF4V60niDOoMHTA+kRAqfJAJ4qZ01tFMm3TPPJmo26oeWjUZd69ACfZOzM gN72Mn+gQwckSw6O3Fnbqus= =st8N -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig07948FE775B81D92B37E8470--