Re: Linux 2.6.32-rc3

Ingo Molnar
2009-10-06T18:26:07Z

* Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 06:40:28PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > Could we, for consistency's sake, make it:
> >
> > 2.6.32-rc3+00052-g0eca52a-dirty
> > 2.6.32-rc3+
> >
> > ? Or do we want to keep the old version string alone for some reason?
>
> I'm a bit concerned that changing from what we've currently had:
>
> > 2.6.29-00052-g0eca52a-dirty
>
> might break some packaging scripts. [...]

( Sidenote: such scripts might as well need fixing then, even without
any upstream changes - adding a localversion file to the top level
directory (which many out of tree projects do) would possibly break
them as well. )

> [...] I'm also personally used to that naming scheme; in fact at the
> moment I'm using 2.6.32-rc1-00292-gb0390e2. :-)

Yeah, i'm pretty happy with auto-localversion as well and use it
everywhere. What i suggested is a small tweak to that: to make it more
clear what people get during the merge window - when the string says
"2.6.31-00292-gb0390e2". Plus a small tweak to the non-auto-localversion
naming: to make the uname output more clear when people disable the
auto-localversion option:

Linux europe 2.6.31+ #2 SMP Tue Oct 6 19:26:58 CEST 2009 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux

versus the inaccurate:

Linux europe 2.6.31 #2 SMP Tue Oct 6 19:26:58 CEST 2009 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux

string which we emit today.

Ingo