From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LrJuU-0006UU-TE for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 07 Apr 2009 18:36:50 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LrJuQ-0006TQ-Ax for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 07 Apr 2009 18:36:50 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=50909 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LrJuQ-0006TM-34 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 07 Apr 2009 18:36:46 -0400 Received: from mx20.gnu.org ([199.232.41.8]:31801) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LrJuP-0008AH-Q7 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 07 Apr 2009 18:36:45 -0400 Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([65.74.133.4]) by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LrJuO-0000oI-7Y for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 07 Apr 2009 18:36:44 -0400 From: Paul Brook Subject: Re: [libvirt] Re: [Qemu-devel] Changing the QEMU svn VERSION string Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 22:36:40 +0000 References: <49DABC83.7010608@codemonkey.ws> <49DB5AAE.8050205@codemonkey.ws> <20090407175844.GA17004@caradoc.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20090407175844.GA17004@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200904072336.41097.paul@codesourcery.com> Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: libvir-list@redhat.com, Gerd Hoffmann , kvm-devel On Tuesday 07 April 2009, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 08:52:46AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > > I think that's going to lead to even more confusion. While I'm inclined > > to not greatly mind 0.10.99 for the development tree, when we do release > > candidates for the next release, it's going to be 0.11.0-rc1. I don't > > expect RPMs to ever be created from non-release versions of QEMU provided > > we stick to our plan of frequent releases. > > FWIW, GDB uses 6.8.50 (devel branch), 6.8.90 (release branch), 6.8.91 > (rc1). That's worked out well for us. I like this one. I'm extremely sceptical of anything that claims to need a fine grained version number. In practice version numbers for open source projects are fairly arbitrary and meaningless because almost everyone has their own set of patches and backported fixes anyway. Paul