From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-bw0-f49.google.com ([209.85.214.49]) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.76 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1QaCrZ-0002OR-6T for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 20:20:25 +0000 Received: by bwf12 with SMTP id 12so252483bwf.36 for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 13:20:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] prepare new nanddump options, defaults From: Artem Bityutskiy To: Mike Frysinger , Peter Korsgaard Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 23:20:17 +0300 In-Reply-To: References: <1308761363-16512-1-git-send-email-computersforpeace@gmail.com> <1308841377.23597.10.camel@sauron> <1308841503.23597.12.camel@sauron> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <1308946822.13493.36.camel@koala> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: David Woodhouse , Brian Norris , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Reply-To: dedekind1@gmail.com List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 19:14 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > and of the ones that do, we have a > > random "2.1.0" from flash_erase. We wouldn't want to have a > decreased > > version number...so do we jump to mtd-utils v2.1 and make everything > > the same version? Or even v3.0, just for fun? > > i dont think anyone has scripts parsing these things. i say let's > just lock them all to the mtd release and forget about it. Let's ask CC Peter who is packaging mtd-utils just in case. Peter, will you suffer if mtd-utils' version all suddenly become 1.4.6? Also, will you suffer if we switch to 2.0 or 3.0 - 2 numbers instead of 3? -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy (Битюцкий Артём)