From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jamie Lokier Subject: Re: [libvirt] Re: [Qemu-devel] Changing the QEMU svn VERSION string Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 14:56:34 +0100 Message-ID: <20090408135634.GA3841@shareable.org> References: <49DABC83.7010608@codemonkey.ws> <49DB5AAE.8050205@codemonkey.ws> <20090407175844.GA17004@caradoc.them.org> <200904072336.41097.paul@codesourcery.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: libvir-list@redhat.com, Gerd Hoffmann , kvm-devel To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Return-path: Received: from mail2.shareable.org ([80.68.89.115]:56013 "EHLO mail2.shareable.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1765793AbZDHN4k (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Apr 2009 09:56:40 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200904072336.41097.paul@codesourcery.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Paul Brook wrote: > I'm extremely sceptical of anything that claims to need a fine > grained version number. In practice version numbers for open source > projects are fairly arbitrary and meaningless because almost > everyone has their own set of patches and backported fixes anyway. I find it's needed onlyh when you need to interact with a program and workaround bugs or temporarily broken features, and also when the program gives no other way to determine its features. For some reason, I find kernels are the main thing this matters for... If the help text, some other output, or an API gives enough information for interacting programs to know what to do, that's much better and works with arbitrary patches etc. -- Jamie