Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 13:03:32 -0600 (MDT) From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Hetzels@aol.com Cc: nate@mt.sri.com, stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CVSup release identity Message-ID: <199710081903.NAA11742@rocky.mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <971008145142_1343674759@emout17.mail.aol.com> References: <971008145142_1343674759@emout17.mail.aol.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > I suggest spending less time arguing, and more time coming up with a > > *solution*, and not a proposed solution. Changes to the tree, > > newvers.sh, etc.... > > > We're trying to come up with the solution but it basically, involves three > areas. > 1. Creation of a .timestamp file added to the source tree. Sure, the only thing that's disagreed upon is the format of the timestamp, and how often it's built. *THIS* is the crux of the matter, and if you can come up with *something*, then the rest is politics. > 2. Create a new newvers.sh that sets the timestamp. No, you want newvers.sh to *use* the timestamp. newvers.sh is used everytime you build a kernel, so you want to use the information from it. > a. "uname -r" should output the release level. And I believe that everyone > is in agreement that it should use a timestamp instead of some counter. That's a political issue. > b. "uname -v" output. Currently, we're tring to decide if the CURRENT, > RELEASE, STABLE tags should go or stay. > > I'm for keeping them as it makes it clear as to what the user is running. > > RKW, is for removing them. Once the solution is in the tree, we can argue about what it says. :) > I currently have a patch to newvers.sh that uses a .timestamp file. This > will cause uname -r to show the release level + time stamp. > > 2. Master Source Repository > > The .timestamp file has to be created after each update to the source > trees. OR at some regular interval. This time-stamp has to be part of the CVS tree *and* available to *all* kernel users. How do you do that? > How do we implement timestamp so that it updates the .timestamp file at the > Master Source Repository? > > This is the only real question left. That's the only real issue IMHO. The rest is politics, and can be argued about with no agreement until hell freezes over with no resolution. Give me *A* working solution, and then whoever can argue about making it a better solution. Something is almost always better than nothing, especially in this case. If you can come up with *a* good solution, and no-one can come up with an agreement on a 'better' solution, the good one will be 'good enough'. Talk is cheap, especially since people like me can get involved. :) :) Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199710081903.NAA11742>