From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: Version numbering Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 22:53:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20080525.225339.94300435.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20080523193210.GB26044@localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, mchan@broadcom.com, benli@broadcom.com To: mcarlson@broadcom.com Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:54824 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751414AbYEZFxn (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 May 2008 01:53:43 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080523193210.GB26044@localdomain> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: "Matt Carlson" Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 12:32:10 -0700 > Hi David. I'm sitting on a small patchset of bugfixes destined for the > net-2.6 tree, but I'm a little confused about how I should handle the > version numbering. > > Right now, the net-2.6 tg3 driver is at version 3.92. The net-next-2.6 > tree has 5785 support added and has a version of 3.93. If we apply > these patches to the net-2.6 driver, we will want to increase the > version number. How would you prefer we handle this? Maybe what we can do is add another sub-version field. So the stable bug fixed driver in net-2.6 would end up being 3.92.1 or something like that.