Re: Linux 2.6.32-rc3

Dirk Hohndel
2009-10-06T17:46:26Z

On Tue, 2009-10-06 at 09:31 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Tue, 6 Oct 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > Unless:
> >
> > > _That_ i think is a lot harder to confuse with the real .31 than a
> > > v2.6.31-1234-g16123c4 version string.
> >
> > .. are you saying that it would be just some automatically generated
> > thing, just a crippled form of CONFIG_LOCALVERSION_AUTO? Kind of a
> > CONFIG_LOCALVERSION_AUTO_SHORTFORM?

That's much better than what I had suggested - and it would work for
your case with multiple trees in a sane manner as well.

> IOW, you'd never get 2.6.32-rc0, but you'd get either the complex git
> version number (or SVN/hg/whatever), or at least "2.6.31+" with the "+"
> showing that it is more than plain 2.6.31.
>
> The "+" could be anything else, of course. The diff is pretty obvious, you
> can argue about exactly _what_ you'd like to see as a suffix for "and then
> some".

The argument by Stefan Richter that '+' is already used informally as
"or later" is somewhat valid - maybe we could use an ampersand (which
originally stood for 'et cetera' - and other things).

But then I don't know if that would confuse tons of scripts as the & has
lots of other meanings in various scripting languages.

--
Dirk Hohndel
Intel Open Source Technology Center