This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Proposal to add additional annotated tags
On 10/16/2017 12:10 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 10/16/2017 08:21 PM, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 11:21:34PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> I would like to add the following annotated tags:
>>>
>>> 00cdcf5a4110f7ac68651f5662693c82f7bffaca glibc-2.26.9000
>>> 58557c229319a3b8d2eefdb62e7df95089eabe37 glibc-2.25.9000
>>> e720d3d9fea2058adb3de2905f1a399ad3e812ff glibc-2.24.9000
>>> c6f391dbf9b3b33e5bc0599dd96c40a0eff2f02b glibc-2.23.9000
>>> 1b15ff4810748abee11b949e6faa115f3f2d20f4 glibc-2.22.9000
>>> d5a8b70560cf758218c13bef6f1dd93ce216424f glibc-2.21.9000
>>> 21c83793a223666b8cfe438d81615941896b355c glibc-2.20.9000
>>> d5b396c1c89ed3026fc89bfcdd72b14d59972e45 glibc-2.19.9000
>>> 6c1fd795711bb510cffaab5ad2ab2739bb8db210 glibc-2.18.9000
>>> 2c8bfe7d6f22c4a599894846bf1715d93b295f53 glibc-2.17.9000
>>> e64ac02c24b43659048622714afdc92fedf561fa glibc-2.16.9000
>>
>> As the last commit is from the ports tree that has no common history
>> with glibc-2.16.0, I suggest tagging
>> e64ac02c24b43659048622714afdc92fedf561fa as glibc-2.16-ports-before-merge,
>> and the subsequent merge commit e84eabb3871c9b39e59323bf3f6b98c2ca9d1cd0
>> as glibc-2.16.9000.
>
> Okay, that is certainly a better solution.
>
> 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.
--
Cheers,
Carlos.