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

[Ben Hutchings]

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 at 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.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 828 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/kernel-team/attachments/20110531/0fe2ed45/attachment.sig>