From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] version: 2.3.0-rc0
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 17:11:33 +0100
Message-ID: <1561631.aijrKaNmiP@xps13>
References: <1450350991-27817-1-git-send-email-thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
 <20151218121145.GB11116@bricha3-MOBL3>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
To: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f54.google.com (mail-wm0-f54.google.com [74.125.82.54])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0DC35A72
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 17:12:49 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-wm0-f54.google.com with SMTP id l126so71710836wml.1
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 08:12:49 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20151218121145.GB11116@bricha3-MOBL3>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

2015-12-18 12:11, Bruce Richardson:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 12:16:30PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
> > ---
> >  lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_version.h | 6 +++---
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_version.h b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_version.h
> > index bb3e9fc..6b1890e 100644
> > --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_version.h
> > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_version.h
> > @@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ extern "C" {
> >  /**
> >   * Minor version number i.e. the y in x.y.z
> >   */
> > -#define RTE_VER_MINOR 2
> > +#define RTE_VER_MINOR 3
> >  
> >  /**
> >   * Patch level number i.e. the z in x.y.z
> > @@ -70,14 +70,14 @@ extern "C" {
> >  /**
> >   * Extra string to be appended to version number
> >   */
> > -#define RTE_VER_SUFFIX ""
> > +#define RTE_VER_SUFFIX "-rc"
> >  
> >  /**
> >   * Patch release number
> >   *   0-15 = release candidates
> >   *   16   = release
> >   */
> > -#define RTE_VER_PATCH_RELEASE 16
> > +#define RTE_VER_PATCH_RELEASE 0
> >  
> >  /**
> >   * Macro to compute a version number usable for comparisons
> 
> What about the discussion about the numbering of DPDK versions in future? The
> latest suggest which was +1'ed a number of times was to use an Ubuntu-style
> YY.MM naming scheme. I don't think there was any objections to such a scheme
> so is it not premature to start naming the new release now using the old scheme?

Before doing any change on master, it is better to change the version number
to avoid confusion with the previous release. Example, the generated doc does
not show 2.2 anymore.

About changing the numbering, no problem, it can be changed at any time before
the RC1. At the moment there was a proposal for YY.MM and a proposal for 3.0.
Even the YY.MM needs more discussion as it is not clear if we should use 15.03
or 15.04 for the release ending at the end of March. It seems reasonnable to
expect a release the next day, i.e. in April.