[PATCH] staging: usbip: userspace: increase version to 2.0

[PATCH] staging: usbip: userspace: increase version to 2.0

[Valentina Manea]

Signed-off-by: Valentina Manea <valentina.manea.m@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/staging/usbip/userspace/configure.ac | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/usbip/userspace/configure.ac b/drivers/staging/usbip/userspace/configure.ac
index 25bf160..607d05c 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/usbip/userspace/configure.ac
+++ b/drivers/staging/usbip/userspace/configure.ac
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 dnl Process this file with autoconf to produce a configure script.
 
 AC_PREREQ(2.59)
-AC_INIT([usbip-utils], [1.1.1], [linux-usb@vger.kernel.org])
+AC_INIT([usbip-utils], [2.0], [linux-usb@vger.kernel.org])
 AC_DEFINE([USBIP_VERSION], [0x00000111], [binary-coded decimal version number])
 
 CURRENT=0
-- 
1.8.1.2

Re: [PATCH] staging: usbip: userspace: increase version to 2.0

[Greg KH]

On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 09:16:39PM +0200, Valentina Manea wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Valentina Manea <valentina.manea.m@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/usbip/userspace/configure.ac | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/usbip/userspace/configure.ac b/drivers/staging/usbip/userspace/configure.ac
> index 25bf160..607d05c 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/usbip/userspace/configure.ac
> +++ b/drivers/staging/usbip/userspace/configure.ac
> @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
>  dnl Process this file with autoconf to produce a configure script.
>  
>  AC_PREREQ(2.59)
> -AC_INIT([usbip-utils], [1.1.1], [linux-usb@vger.kernel.org])
> +AC_INIT([usbip-utils], [2.0], [linux-usb@vger.kernel.org])

Why?

What does this mean?  What warrents the version change?  Why have a
version at all?

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [PATCH] staging: usbip: userspace: increase version to 2.0

[Valentina Manea]

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 09:16:39PM +0200, Valentina Manea wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Valentina Manea <valentina.manea.m@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/staging/usbip/userspace/configure.ac | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/usbip/userspace/configure.ac b/drivers/staging/usbip/userspace/configure.ac
>> index 25bf160..607d05c 100644
>> --- a/drivers/staging/usbip/userspace/configure.ac
>> +++ b/drivers/staging/usbip/userspace/configure.ac
>> @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
>>  dnl Process this file with autoconf to produce a configure script.
>>
>>  AC_PREREQ(2.59)
>> -AC_INIT([usbip-utils], [1.1.1], [linux-usb@vger.kernel.org])
>> +AC_INIT([usbip-utils], [2.0], [linux-usb@vger.kernel.org])
>
> Why?
>
> What does this mean?  What warrents the version change?  Why have a
> version at all?
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h

This was part of an effort to "refresh" USB/IP by moving userspace out
of kernel.git.
Since some major changes have been made (libudev migration), Andy (cc'ed) and me
thought it was worth to be promoted to version 2.0.

Thanks,
Valentina

Re: [PATCH] staging: usbip: userspace: increase version to 2.0

[Andrew Grover]

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:14 PM, Valentina Manea
<valentina.manea.m@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 09:16:39PM +0200, Valentina Manea wrote:
>>> -AC_INIT([usbip-utils], [1.1.1], [linux-usb@vger.kernel.org])
>>> +AC_INIT([usbip-utils], [2.0], [linux-usb@vger.kernel.org])
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> What does this mean?  What warrents the version change?  Why have a
>> version at all?
>
> This was part of an effort to "refresh" USB/IP by moving userspace out
> of kernel.git.
> Since some major changes have been made (libudev migration), Andy (cc'ed) and me
> thought it was worth to be promoted to version 2.0.

(sorry, resending in plain text mode so vger doesn't bounce (curse you
gmail :-))

Valentina did considerable work in moving usbip-utils from using the
defunct libsysfs to libudev (well, part of systemd now it seems.) so
some version bump seems appropriate, why not to 2.0? esp. as a
heads-up to pkg maintainers - btw usbip-utils is already packaged for
Debian, and I could probably see it in Fedora too, why not.

As to why have a version at all, this is of course tied to whether
usbip-utils will ever emerge from the belly of the whale and return to
its own home. I think it should someday, if the concerns about
long-term maintenance and interface stability can be addressed to your
satisfaction. It would be considerable work to integrate it into the
kernel build, and would need to be undone if it ever left kernel.git.

Regards -- Andy

Re: [PATCH] staging: usbip: userspace: increase version to 2.0

[Greg KH]

On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 11:30:06PM -0800, Andrew Grover wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:14 PM, Valentina Manea
> <valentina.manea.m@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 09:16:39PM +0200, Valentina Manea wrote:
> >>> -AC_INIT([usbip-utils], [1.1.1], [linux-usb@vger.kernel.org])
> >>> +AC_INIT([usbip-utils], [2.0], [linux-usb@vger.kernel.org])
> >>
> >> Why?
> >>
> >> What does this mean?  What warrents the version change?  Why have a
> >> version at all?
> >
> > This was part of an effort to "refresh" USB/IP by moving userspace out
> > of kernel.git.
> > Since some major changes have been made (libudev migration), Andy (cc'ed) and me
> > thought it was worth to be promoted to version 2.0.
> 
> (sorry, resending in plain text mode so vger doesn't bounce (curse you
> gmail :-))
> 
> Valentina did considerable work in moving usbip-utils from using the
> defunct libsysfs to libudev (well, part of systemd now it seems.) so
> some version bump seems appropriate, why not to 2.0? esp. as a
> heads-up to pkg maintainers - btw usbip-utils is already packaged for
> Debian, and I could probably see it in Fedora too, why not.
> 
> As to why have a version at all, this is of course tied to whether
> usbip-utils will ever emerge from the belly of the whale and return to
> its own home. I think it should someday, if the concerns about
> long-term maintenance and interface stability can be addressed to your
> satisfaction. It would be considerable work to integrate it into the
> kernel build, and would need to be undone if it ever left kernel.git.

One big confusion this patch caused, is that it showed up "on its own"
before the "libudev rewrite" in my inbox.  So all I see is this patch
incrementing the version for no real reason.

Valentina, please always order all of your patches so I know which order
in which to apply them in.  I see a bunch of follow-on patches after
your larger series, what order should they be applied in?  Can you just
resend _all_ of these, and number them in the correct order in which
they need to be applied in, so I know exactly what to do here?

thanks,

greg k-h