From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:57382 "EHLO out1-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756469AbaFTUwU (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Jun 2014 16:52:20 -0400 Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.43]) by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E8DC213AE for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2014 16:52:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 13:56:19 -0700 From: Greg KH Subject: Re: [PATCH] Makefile: version.h macros KERNEL_EXTRAVERSION, LINUX_EXTRAVERSION_CODE Message-ID: <20140620205619.GB17904@kroah.com> References: <1403189058-24103-1-git-send-email-kamal@canonical.com> <53A4016E.9040108@suse.cz> <1403279278.14743.64.camel@fourier> <53A49ABB.8070704@suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <53A49ABB.8070704@suse.cz> Sender: linux-kbuild-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Michal Marek Cc: Kamal Mostafa , linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Luis Henriques On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 10:34:03PM +0200, Michal Marek wrote: > Dne 20.6.2014 17:47, Kamal Mostafa napsal(a): > > On Fri, 2014-06-20 at 11:39 +0200, Michal Marek wrote: > >> Why don't you guys simply increment the third digit in the extended > >> stable tree and get support for KERNEL_VERSION() for free? You always > >> start after the respective stable branch has reached EOL, don't you? > > > > Yes, we only start after the stable branch has reached EOL. > > > > We don't increment the third integer for the extended-stable branches > > (we add a fourth integer instead) in order to avoid the possibility of a > > collision if Greg KH were to ever release a "special" post-EOL version > > of one of his branches. > > The maintainers of 2.6.32.y, 3.2.y and 3.12.y have taken that risk and > it has been working fine so far ;-). Those maintainers are doing so on the kernel.org infrastructure, with my help and encouragement, unlike these Canonical "stable" trees, so their risk was a lot less :) thanks, greg k-h