Re: ketchup script and 3.0

[Stratos Psomadakis <psomas@ece.ntua.gr>]

On 06/07/2011 11:10 PM, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-06-07 at 22:48 +0300, Stratos Psomadakis wrote:
>> On 06/07/2011 03:53 PM, Matt Mackall wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2011-06-07 at 08:40 +0100, Frank Kingswood wrote:
>>>> Hi!
>>>>
>>>> With Linux 3.0 approaching rapidly, is the ketchup script known to work?
>>>> It has this tempting <ver> parameter but I've always passed in "2.6" there.
>>> It's on its third maintainer now and I've already forgotten the name of
>>> the new guy.
>> It's me :P
>>
>> I uploaded the ketchup code at github, and added some code to handle 3.x
>> versions, but I've not tested it very much, so it's still in a separate
>> branch. [1]
>> You can check it out/test it, if you want. If it works without problems,
>> when linux-3.0 gets released, I'll tag a new version of ketchup and
>> notify distro maintainers to upgrade their packages.
> I took a brief glance at your changes. You'll probably want to teach it
> that 2.6.39++ == 3.0 so that people can seamlessly move back and forth
> between the two ranges. This wasn't something that made sense across the
> 2.4/2.6 transition.
>
> Oh, wait, maybe I've spotted the code for this.
>
> Thinking ahead just a bit, it'd be nice if we could just declare in
> advance that 3.9++ == 4.0. If we're going to bump the major number at
> arbitrary points, that's the most obvious one. It's approximately 3
> years out at the current rate which seems like a good pace. Then tools
> like ketchup and other tools that handle these version numbers could
> just do all this once.
>
> Linus?
Yeap, that would be nice, indeed. Otherwise, ketchup code (and other
tools probably) will get uglier and uglier as major numbers advance, and
I made it look ugly already (although this is probably 'thinking way
into the future').

-- 
Stratos Psomadakis
<psomas@ece.ntua.gr>