This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Proposal to add additional annotated tags


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  <fweimer@redhat.com>

	* 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"

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]