Re: Linux 2.6.32-rc3

Dave Airlie
2009-10-07T01:23:17Z

On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 8:19 AM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
>
> 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!

Why don't you just have the kernel version Linux-commitid?

why keep up the pretense that the 2.6.xx bit means anything outside of release?

You could just have the tarball generation scripts make it into a 2.6.31 but
for everyone else we never see it.

Dave.