From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Smith Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add sequence number to 'xm info' Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 17:14:00 -0700 Message-ID: <87mzlwwx13.fsf@us.ibm.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: In-Reply-To: (Ian Pratt's message of "Thu, 29 Sep 2005 00:03:04 +0100") List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Ian Pratt Cc: Xen Developers List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org IP> I guess for trees that are direct clones of xenbits with no local IP> modifications then the short id is meaningful. Such trees are IP> probably in the majority. Indeed. Additionally, people who are testing xen on all of their systems will most likely be doing so with a real clone of the repo, and not one with a bunch of random patches, I would think. IP> I guess it doesn't really hurt providing people know what they're IP> doing. I think the people who don't know what they're doing won't know that it's not part of the larger changeset ID, which means they'll copy the whole thing when posting a bug, which gets the info there anyway. Would it be better to tuck the sequence number away somewhere else? I think that would be a bit overkill, but if anyone has strong feelings about it, I can do it. Perhaps adding "xen_build" to "xen_major" and "xen_minor"? -- Dan Smith IBM Linux Technology Center Open Hypervisor Team email: danms@us.ibm.com