Just when you thought 2.6 would go on forever...
 

Hi Stefan,

> And as a side note from Colin Watson:
>
> "so regarding 3.0; the kernel team knows that 3.0.0 < 3.0 as far as dpkg is
> concerned, right? we'll need to be careful when uploading the RCs ..."
>
> "you can use 3.0~3.0.0-<whatever> or similar..."

The changelog for 3.0-rc1:

Linux 3.0-rc1

.. except there are various scripts that really know that there are
three numbers, so it calls itself "3.0.0-rc1".

Hopefully by the time the final 3.0 is out, we'll have that extra
zero all figured out.

Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>

If there's something you need w.r.t. the "extra zero", I'd say now is
the time to speak up :)

Cheers,


Jeremy


--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team

Just when you thought 2.6 would go on forever...
 

On 30.05.2011 10:54, Jeremy Kerr wrote:

Hi Stefan,


And as a side note from Colin Watson:

"so regarding 3.0; the kernel team knows that 3.0.0< 3.0 as far as dpkg is
concerned, right? we'll need to be careful when uploading the RCs ..."

"you can use 3.0~3.0.0-<whatever> or similar..."


The changelog for 3.0-rc1:

Linux 3.0-rc1

.. except there are various scripts that really know that there are
three numbers, so it calls itself "3.0.0-rc1".

Hopefully by the time the final 3.0 is out, we'll have that extra
zero all figured out.

Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds<torvalds@linux-foundation.org>

If there's something you need w.r.t. the "extra zero", I'd say now is
the time to speak up :)

Cheers,


Jeremy



I guess the "interesting" part is how stable/longterm will fit in. Will those
take up the free SUBLEVEL or still put the additional digit into EXTRAVERSION?

And will they start with 0 or 1. I wished I had some voices telling. :)

-Stefan

--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team

Just when you thought 2.6 would go on forever...
 

So is the repo going to be renamed from linux-2.6.git? :-)

--
Loïc Minier

--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team

Just when you thought 2.6 would go on forever...
 

On Mon, 2011-05-30 at 09:57 +0200, Stefan Bader wrote:
> On 30.05.2011 09:41, Stefan Bader wrote:
> > not sure all have heard about the voices in Linus' head[1] but obviously the
> > newest tag is v3.0-rc1... Script hell opens up... :-P
> >
> > -Stefan
> >
> > [1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mm/63589
> >
>
> And as a side note from Colin Watson:
>
> "so regarding 3.0; the kernel team knows that 3.0.0 < 3.0 as far as dpkg is
> concerned, right? we'll need to be careful when uploading the RCs ..."

Just for clarification, cjwatson meant to say "3.0.0 > 3.0"

[11:58:51] <ogasawara> May 30 05/30/11:00:51:00 <cjwatson> hmm, so regarding 3.0; the kernel team knows that 3.0.0 < 3.0 as far as dpkg is concerned, right? we'll need to be careful when uploading the RCs ...
[11:58:55] <ogasawara> cjwatson: ^^
[11:59:32] <ogasawara> cjwatson: I just want to make sure I have it clear in my head, 3.0.0 > 3.0
[12:00:29] * ogasawara plans to discuss our versioning with apw tomorrow
[12:12:20] <cjwatson> I'm sorry, I did mean > in the line you quoted above
[12:12:43] <cjwatson> i.e. that if you upload 3.0.0-1 (say) then you can't subsequently upload 3.0-1
[12:12:51] <cjwatson> or 3.0-1000 for that matter
[12:13:16] <ogasawara> cjwatson: right, that makes sense to me
[12:13:44] <cjwatson> just jumped out at me as a really easy way to shoot oneself in the foot in this situation
[12:14:01] <ogasawara> cjwatson: indeed

> "you can use 3.0~3.0.0-<whatever> or similar..."
>



--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team

Just when you thought 2.6 would go on forever...
 

On Mon, 2011-05-30 at 11:01 +0200, Stefan Bader wrote:
> On 30.05.2011 10:54, Jeremy Kerr wrote:
> > Hi Stefan,
> >
> >> And as a side note from Colin Watson:
> >>
> >> "so regarding 3.0; the kernel team knows that 3.0.0< 3.0 as far as dpkg is
> >> concerned, right? we'll need to be careful when uploading the RCs ..."
> >>
> >> "you can use 3.0~3.0.0-<whatever> or similar..."
> >
> > The changelog for 3.0-rc1:
> >
> > Linux 3.0-rc1
> >
> > .. except there are various scripts that really know that there are
> > three numbers, so it calls itself "3.0.0-rc1".
> >
> > Hopefully by the time the final 3.0 is out, we'll have that extra
> > zero all figured out.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds<torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
> >
> > If there's something you need w.r.t. the "extra zero", I'd say now is
> > the time to speak up :)
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> >
> > Jeremy
> >
>
> I guess the "interesting" part is how stable/longterm will fit in. Will those
> take up the free SUBLEVEL or still put the additional digit into EXTRAVERSION?
> And will they start with 0 or 1. I wished I had some voices telling. :)

Stable updates are intended to use the third component, starting with a
value of 1. So if you convert "3.0" to "3.0.0" there should still be no
ambiguity with later stable updates.

Ben.

--
Ben Hutchings
Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.
--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team

Just when you thought 2.6 would go on forever...
 

On 31.05.2011 02:21, Ben Hutchings wrote:

On Mon, 2011-05-30 at 11:01 +0200, Stefan Bader wrote:

On 30.05.2011 10:54, Jeremy Kerr wrote:

Hi Stefan,


And as a side note from Colin Watson:

"so regarding 3.0; the kernel team knows that 3.0.0< 3.0 as far as dpkg is
concerned, right? we'll need to be careful when uploading the RCs ..."

"you can use 3.0~3.0.0-<whatever> or similar..."


The changelog for 3.0-rc1:

Linux 3.0-rc1

.. except there are various scripts that really know that there are
three numbers, so it calls itself "3.0.0-rc1".

Hopefully by the time the final 3.0 is out, we'll have that extra
zero all figured out.

Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds<torvalds@linux-foundation.org>

If there's something you need w.r.t. the "extra zero", I'd say now is
the time to speak up :)

Cheers,


Jeremy



I guess the "interesting" part is how stable/longterm will fit in. Will those
take up the free SUBLEVEL or still put the additional digit into EXTRAVERSION?
And will they start with 0 or 1. I wished I had some voices telling. :)


Stable updates are intended to use the third component, starting with a
value of 1. So if you convert "3.0" to "3.0.0" there should still be no
ambiguity with later stable updates.

Ben.



Ok, so 1 it will be and I assume "to use the third component" means those will
increment SUBLEVEL. Thanks. :)


It might be less problematic once settled. It seemed to me atm the kernel
scripts can get into issues with a 3.0 and so 3.0.0 is used but it might get
dropped later. Which could cause package version oddness with having 3.0.0 before.


-Stefan

--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team