Re: Versioning of tree

Måns Rullgård
2004-10-21T15:40:59Z

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> writes:

> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, Len Brown wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 2004-10-20 at 02:49, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>> >
>> > After you tag a "release" tree in bk, could you bump the version
>> > number right away, with eventually some junk in EXTRAVERSION like
>> > "-devel" ?
>>
>> I'd find this to be really helpful too. There has been this period
>> between, say, 2.6.9 and 2.6.10-whatever where my build/install scripts
>> scribble over my "reference" kernels.
>
> Personally, I much rather go the way we have gone, because I don't care
> about module versioning nearly as much as I care about bug-report
> versioning. And if I hear about a bug with 2.6.10-rc1, I want to know that
> it really is at _least_ 2.6.10-rc1, if you see what I mean..
>
> Now, personally, I'd actually like to know the exact top-of-tree
> changeset, so I've considered having something that saves that one away,
> but then we'd need to do something about non-BK users (make the nightly
> snapshots squirrell it away somewhere too). That would solve both the
> module versioning _and_ the bug-report issue.
>
> So if somebody comes up with a build script that generates that kind of
> extra-version automatically, I'm more receptive. But I don't want to muck
> with the version manually in a way that I think is the wrong way around..

Would it work to somewhere in the Makefile check for the existence of
a BitKeeper directory, and if it exists run bk with the appropriate
arguments and append something to EXTRAVERSION? I'm not quite sure
which information is the best to add, though.

--
Måns Rullgård
mru@mru.ath.cx