* Should SUBLEVEL be removed for 3.x ?
@ 2011-07-10 22:07 Jesper Juhl
2011-07-10 23:09 ` Randy Dunlap
2011-07-13 21:53 ` Jesper Juhl
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jesper Juhl @ 2011-07-10 22:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel; +Cc: Linus Torvalds, Andrew Morton
Hi
If the plan is that the new kernel is going to be 3.0 (3.x) and the
-stable kernels then get to tack on a third digit with EXTRAVERSION, then
it seems to me that the main Makefile should get rid of SUBLEVEL - or?
Or is the plan to ditch EXTRAVERSION for -stable kernels and have them use
SUBLEVEL instead?
There are a few scripts that need fixing if SUBLEVEL goes the way of the
Dodo, but I didn't want to start fixing those without a clear indication
of whether or not SUBLEVEL is going to/should die.
So what's going to happen to SUBLEVEL/EXTRAVERSION?
--
Jesper Juhl <jj@chaosbits.net> http://www.chaosbits.net/
Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Should SUBLEVEL be removed for 3.x ?
2011-07-10 22:07 Should SUBLEVEL be removed for 3.x ? Jesper Juhl
@ 2011-07-10 23:09 ` Randy Dunlap
2011-07-10 23:26 ` Jesper Juhl
2011-07-13 21:53 ` Jesper Juhl
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Randy Dunlap @ 2011-07-10 23:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jesper Juhl; +Cc: linux-kernel, Linus Torvalds, Andrew Morton
On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 00:07:13 +0200 (CEST) Jesper Juhl wrote:
> Hi
>
> If the plan is that the new kernel is going to be 3.0 (3.x) and the
> -stable kernels then get to tack on a third digit with EXTRAVERSION, then
> it seems to me that the main Makefile should get rid of SUBLEVEL - or?
>
> Or is the plan to ditch EXTRAVERSION for -stable kernels and have them use
> SUBLEVEL instead?
>
> There are a few scripts that need fixing if SUBLEVEL goes the way of the
> Dodo, but I didn't want to start fixing those without a clear indication
> of whether or not SUBLEVEL is going to/should die.
>
> So what's going to happen to SUBLEVEL/EXTRAVERSION?
I cannot answer this, but I'd certainly like to see a clear answer
since I also have several scripts that need such attention.
---
~Randy
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Should SUBLEVEL be removed for 3.x ?
2011-07-10 23:09 ` Randy Dunlap
@ 2011-07-10 23:26 ` Jesper Juhl
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jesper Juhl @ 2011-07-10 23:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Randy Dunlap; +Cc: linux-kernel, Linus Torvalds, Andrew Morton
On Sun, 10 Jul 2011, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 00:07:13 +0200 (CEST) Jesper Juhl wrote:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > If the plan is that the new kernel is going to be 3.0 (3.x) and the
> > -stable kernels then get to tack on a third digit with EXTRAVERSION, then
> > it seems to me that the main Makefile should get rid of SUBLEVEL - or?
> >
> > Or is the plan to ditch EXTRAVERSION for -stable kernels and have them use
> > SUBLEVEL instead?
> >
> > There are a few scripts that need fixing if SUBLEVEL goes the way of the
> > Dodo, but I didn't want to start fixing those without a clear indication
> > of whether or not SUBLEVEL is going to/should die.
> >
> > So what's going to happen to SUBLEVEL/EXTRAVERSION?
>
> I cannot answer this, but I'd certainly like to see a clear answer
> since I also have several scripts that need such attention.
>
And besides our own personal scriots there's also stuff like
scripts/patch-kernel and Documentation/kbuild/makefiles.txt
that need updating.
--
Jesper Juhl <jj@chaosbits.net> http://www.chaosbits.net/
Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Should SUBLEVEL be removed for 3.x ?
2011-07-10 22:07 Should SUBLEVEL be removed for 3.x ? Jesper Juhl
2011-07-10 23:09 ` Randy Dunlap
@ 2011-07-13 21:53 ` Jesper Juhl
2011-07-15 17:33 ` Linus Torvalds
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jesper Juhl @ 2011-07-13 21:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Torvalds; +Cc: linux-kernel, Andrew Morton, Randy Dunlap
Linus: ping?
Would be nice to get this clarified before 3.0 happens :-)
On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> Hi
>
> If the plan is that the new kernel is going to be 3.0 (3.x) and the
> -stable kernels then get to tack on a third digit with EXTRAVERSION, then
> it seems to me that the main Makefile should get rid of SUBLEVEL - or?
>
> Or is the plan to ditch EXTRAVERSION for -stable kernels and have them use
> SUBLEVEL instead?
>
> There are a few scripts that need fixing if SUBLEVEL goes the way of the
> Dodo, but I didn't want to start fixing those without a clear indication
> of whether or not SUBLEVEL is going to/should die.
>
> So what's going to happen to SUBLEVEL/EXTRAVERSION?
>
>
--
Jesper Juhl <jj@chaosbits.net> http://www.chaosbits.net/
Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Should SUBLEVEL be removed for 3.x ?
2011-07-13 21:53 ` Jesper Juhl
@ 2011-07-15 17:33 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-07-17 16:10 ` Jesper Juhl
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Linus Torvalds @ 2011-07-15 17:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jesper Juhl; +Cc: linux-kernel, Andrew Morton, Randy Dunlap
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Jesper Juhl <jj@chaosbits.net> wrote:
>
> Would be nice to get this clarified before 3.0 happens :-)
I don't think I can realistically make it call itself 3.0, even though
the *tag* will certainly be just 3.0.
I considered making it a config option (so that people with fixed
tools could do it), but ..
Linus
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: Should SUBLEVEL be removed for 3.x ?
2011-07-15 17:33 ` Linus Torvalds
@ 2011-07-17 16:10 ` Jesper Juhl
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jesper Juhl @ 2011-07-17 16:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Torvalds; +Cc: linux-kernel, Andrew Morton, Randy Dunlap
On Fri, 15 Jul 2011, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Jesper Juhl <jj@chaosbits.net> wrote:
> >
> > Would be nice to get this clarified before 3.0 happens :-)
>
> I don't think I can realistically make it call itself 3.0, even though
> the *tag* will certainly be just 3.0.
>
> I considered making it a config option (so that people with fixed
> tools could do it), but ..
>
Ok, so SUBLEVEL will stay. I guess that the stable kernels will then just
use that and EXTRAVERSION will go away - right?
--
Jesper Juhl <jj@chaosbits.net> http://www.chaosbits.net/
Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-07-17 16:10 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2011-07-10 22:07 Should SUBLEVEL be removed for 3.x ? Jesper Juhl
2011-07-10 23:09 ` Randy Dunlap
2011-07-10 23:26 ` Jesper Juhl
2011-07-13 21:53 ` Jesper Juhl
2011-07-15 17:33 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-07-17 16:10 ` Jesper Juhl
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®