From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] build: use version number from config
 file
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 11:20:34 +0000
Message-ID: <20190313112034.GD1118972@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com>
References: <20190307115448.54041-1-bruce.richardson@intel.com>
 <20190307133502.55321-1-bruce.richardson@intel.com>
 <20190307133502.55321-3-bruce.richardson@intel.com>
 <2333456.BDb5ShVbCQ@xps>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>,
 Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACCDA568A
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 12:20:38 +0100 (CET)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2333456.BDb5ShVbCQ@xps>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 12:13:52PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 07/03/2019 14:35, Bruce Richardson:
> > +#
> > +# Version information completed when this file is processed for a build
> > +#
> > +CONFIG_RTE_VER_YEAR=__YEAR
> > +CONFIG_RTE_VER_MONTH=__MONTH
> > +CONFIG_RTE_VER_MINOR=__MINOR
> > +CONFIG_RTE_VER_SUFFIX=__SUFFIX
> > +CONFIG_RTE_VER_RELEASE=__RELEASE
> [...]
> > -/**
> > - * Patch release number
> > - *   0-15 = release candidates
> > - *   16   = release
> > - */
> > -#define RTE_VER_RELEASE 0
> 
> So you are removing the special value 16.
> Is it replaced by an empty value?
> 
> I think it is an issue for version comparison with RTE_VERSION_NUM() macro.
> The -rc3 must be lower than the final release (which had number 16
> for this reason).
> 
Aha, that explains the reason for the 16 value. I did wonder why we
bothered with it when it wasn't actually used in printing etc. Let me go
back and look into this set again, armed with this new info. [We also need
to document this reason in the code comments for future information]