Re: Linux 2.6.32-rc3

Linus Torvalds
2009-10-06T22:22:03Z

On Wed, 7 Oct 2009, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> Sure, when doing the stuff ourselves. Again, the problem is user
> reports. Being able to distinguish between a 2.6.x "release" kernel and
> anything else would be of value, at least to me.

Why are you arguing? CONFIG_LOCALVERSION_AUTO gives exactly that?

Also, why do you think that "release" is any special? All the same things
are true about "is it -rc1 or is it -rc1-351-g58e57fb? When it comes to a
bug-report, the difference between the two can be huge.

> I disagree. I understand the linearity problem. My point isn't about
> having the Makefile provide with any kind of precise "pointer" into that
> tree for non-release, but really only to differenciate a release from
> anything else.

And your point is totally destroyed by any amount of thinking. Which you
clearly didn't do.

I repeat: there are tons of kernels that would not be based directly on
that "-rc0" commit. You would confuse _those_ cases even more, because you
would now think that they are somehow "release" kernels.

And the fact is, NONE OF YOUR BLATHERING has in any way shown why people
shouldn't just use CONFIG_LOCALVERSION_AUTO.

I keep on returning to that, and harping on it, but the point is, WE
ALREADY SOLVED THIS PROBLEM. Every single person who asks for a -rc0 tag
is just being stupid. You already have a much superior solution.

So don't ask me for something _stupid_, when you already have the smart
thing!

Linus