Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 09:35:49 -0600 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: noackjr@alumni.rice.edu Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [src] cvs commit: src/sys/sys param.h src/sys/conf newvers.sh Message-ID: <41237755.6030902@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <41230744.5030504@alumni.rice.edu> References: <200408180021.i7I0LCCK020175@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040818002136.03A8B16A524@hub.freebsd.org> <20040818060547.GB6348@ip.net.ua> <412301F0.2070307@alumni.rice.edu> <41230744.5030504@alumni.rice.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jon Noack wrote: > On 08/18/04 02:14, Jon Noack wrote: > >> On 08/18/04 01:05, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 12:21:36AM +0000, Scott Long wrote: >>> >>>> Index: src/sys/sys/param.h >>> >>> >>> [...] >>> >>>> * scheme is: <major><two digit minor><0 if release branch, >>>> otherwise 1>xx >>>> */ >>>> #undef __FreeBSD_version >>>> -#define __FreeBSD_version 502128 /* Master, propagated to >>>> newvers */ >>>> +#define __FreeBSD_version 600000 /* Master, propagated to >>>> newvers */ >>> >>> ^^^^^^ >>> I believe this should be 600100, or are we changing the scheme >>> again? >> >> >> No, 600000 is correct. The reason is that 600100 will be used for >> 6-CURRENT *after* a 6.0-RELEASE. 6-CURRENT before and *including* >> 6.0-RELEASE should follow the 6000xx scheme. Note that this is >> unchanged from the way 5-CURRENT and 5.0-RELEASE (which ended up being >> 500043) were handled: >> http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/freebsd-versions.html > > > > This feels really Linux, but I'll throw it out anyway: > Perhaps pre-n.0 (prior to a major release, in other words) should use an > (n-1)999xx numbering scheme so that n.0 can be n00000. For instance, > 6-CURRENT would start at 599900. That would allow 6.0 to be 600000. > Numbering after the n.0 release would remain the same as it is now. > There may be places were 600000 is hardcoded in the source (BURN_BRIDGES > comes to mind), but that could be fixed. > > I feel like I'm having my own personal bikeshed over this issue, but it > annoys me we can't tag an n.0 release as n00000. Oh well, it's probably > not important enough to change so I'll go to sleep before someone can > properly embarrass me about this. > > Jon FreeBSD 4.0 was 400017 FreeBSD 3.0 was 300005 I think that what we have is fine. Trying to do '999' numbers just gets us into the same bind as other projects that do that, estimate wrong, and then run out of number space. The __FreeBSD_version isn't an advertised version number, it's just a tag that can be used to track changes programatically. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?41237755.6030902>