Re: Linux 2.6.32-rc3

Theodore Tso
2009-10-06T18:13:27Z

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

- Ted