From patchwork Mon Oct 16 19:41:08 2017 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Florian Weimer X-Patchwork-Id: 23620 Received: (qmail 109139 invoked by alias); 16 Oct 2017 19:41:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Delivered-To: mailing list libc-alpha@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 109128 invoked by uid 89); 16 Oct 2017 19:41:16 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-26.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, GIT_PATCH_0, GIT_PATCH_1, GIT_PATCH_2, GIT_PATCH_3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD, SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com F3DC67C822 Authentication-Results: ext-mx03.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx03.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=fweimer@redhat.com Subject: Re: Proposal to add additional annotated tags To: Carlos O'Donell , libc-alpha@sourceware.org Cc: "Dmitry V. Levin" References: <87r2u6agm9.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <20171016182126.GA5854@altlinux.org> <9100cfeb-b454-2fdf-cfc5-f83db40a6f81@redhat.com> <799901c7-725a-3ce7-57c7-98b46d145606@redhat.com> From: Florian Weimer Message-ID: Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 21:41:08 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <799901c7-725a-3ce7-57c7-98b46d145606@redhat.com> On 10/16/2017 09:15 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote: >> Should I use .90 in the tags and not .9000?  I'm asking because >> >> -#define RELEASE "stable" >> -#define VERSION "2.26" >> +#define RELEASE "development" >> +#define VERSION "2.26.90" >> >> we use .90 versions during development. (I mistakenly assumed that >> this was something Fedora-specific.) I switched to .9000 to avoid >> collisions with point-release tarballs from a long-lived release >> branch branch. > > Why don't we change VERSION to 2.26.9000 to make the tags match? > > The choice of .90 was always arbitrary. > > I see nothing but benefit in using a larger development revision > number. Testing showed no problems caused by .9000. I'm going to install the attached patch. I will use .90 tags for the older development branches, and the .9000 tag for the new branch only. Thanks, Florian 2017-10-16 Florian Weimer * version.h (VERSION): Switch to ".9000" as the development version suffix. diff --git a/version.h b/version.h index b6a0412847..788d0c3509 100644 --- a/version.h +++ b/version.h @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ /* This file just defines the current version number of libc. */ #define RELEASE "development" -#define VERSION "2.26.90" +#define VERSION "2.26.9000"