From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96F07A6A
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:11:49 +0100 (CET)
Received: from fmsmga003.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.29])
 by fmsmga104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 18 Dec 2015 04:11:48 -0800
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,446,1444719600"; d="scan'208";a="620139228"
Received: from bricha3-mobl3.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.237.208.64])
 by FMSMGA003.fm.intel.com with SMTP; 18 Dec 2015 04:11:46 -0800
Received: by  (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 18 Dec 2015 12:11:46 +0025
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 12:11:46 +0000
From: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Message-ID: <20151218121145.GB11116@bricha3-MOBL3>
References: <1450350991-27817-1-git-send-email-thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1450350991-27817-1-git-send-email-thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Organization: Intel Shannon Ltd.
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] version: 2.3.0-rc0
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 12:11:50 -0000

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 12:16:30PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
> ---
>  lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_version.h | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_version.h b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_version.h
> index bb3e9fc..6b1890e 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_version.h
> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_version.h
> @@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ extern "C" {
>  /**
>   * Minor version number i.e. the y in x.y.z
>   */
> -#define RTE_VER_MINOR 2
> +#define RTE_VER_MINOR 3
>  
>  /**
>   * Patch level number i.e. the z in x.y.z
> @@ -70,14 +70,14 @@ extern "C" {
>  /**
>   * Extra string to be appended to version number
>   */
> -#define RTE_VER_SUFFIX ""
> +#define RTE_VER_SUFFIX "-rc"
>  
>  /**
>   * Patch release number
>   *   0-15 = release candidates
>   *   16   = release
>   */
> -#define RTE_VER_PATCH_RELEASE 16
> +#define RTE_VER_PATCH_RELEASE 0
>  
>  /**
>   * Macro to compute a version number usable for comparisons
> -- 
> 2.5.2
> 

What about the discussion about the numbering of DPDK versions in future? The
latest suggest which was +1'ed a number of times was to use an Ubuntu-style
YY.MM naming scheme. I don't think there was any objections to such a scheme
so is it not premature to start naming the new release now using the old scheme?

/Bruce