Re: Linux 2.6.32-rc3

Linus Torvalds
2009-10-06T15:54:05Z

On Tue, 6 Oct 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> hm, i think you ignored (or missed, or found irrelevant) my first
> suggested variant:

No, I didn't ignore it, it just showed that you didn't know what you were
thinking about.

> v2.6.31
> v2.6.31+
>
> The '+' sign says that it's more than .31.

No. It shows no such thing. Because it DOES NOT EXIST in other peoples
trees until they rebase on top of mine.

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?

If so, then I don't hate "v2.6.31+", but at the same time, that single
plus-sign tells _so_much_ less than v2.6.31-1234-g16123c4 that I think
it's really sad and crippled.

Is it so hard to teach people what "v2.6.31-1234-g16123c4" means? It's not
like it's very complicated, and it's not like it's not visually very
distinct indeed from the tagged release case (which is just "v2.6.31").

I'd love to use "+" instead of "-", but I was thinking that there are
various version things that get unhappy about special characters like
that, so we've always used '-' as the separator (since we've always used
it).

So I'm _entirely_ open to changing how 'CONFIG_LOCALVERSION_AUTO' works,
or extending on that notion.

What I'm _not_ open to doing is to add made-up commits that change the
top-level Makefile at non-release points. Because that way really does lie
insanity.

Linus