From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf0-f179.google.com (mail-pf0-f179.google.com [209.85.192.179]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4E799190 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 23:26:23 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-pf0-f179.google.com with SMTP id e65so65672609pfe.1 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 14:26:23 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:organization:user-agent :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :content-type; bh=7XwrtuhexZKbeig2upxeaPrJYTmuL5aQSbq1UAiwFFw=; b=USNiqjMimXovMHmYNrgm5TLsmT3fkUey1nTjWJJBv1AcHTHK1+lRKpDy4JhASKhrBX FmZ/Kr4TANjt+eB0FVf35Vh8knQW3Jwq8bfk1AEeQ7sUPZssQa/NtzF+lPcxW7RmATcW 1va8k2CJSOt3+1QLcId5lGjpsKV+epT+gzuDkW9CAAMShyLEG4cxN7DjLHJWYZr0gNSu w9AbcBVWTrlJmAXQ3bbiKDbeLa69OZ8PCdFj3dQSCaOQR7FaonhpVgyzG0lyRFlx7V30 /X5PAzv245/kDoo1zGBSVLPFGorpWlVNFec0cucxTbM9F7SphoLBvOiYErzaQndEs7F3 bz5A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:organization :user-agent:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:content-type; bh=7XwrtuhexZKbeig2upxeaPrJYTmuL5aQSbq1UAiwFFw=; b=hKkYwHCs/FEfa5NJ2GfmW9QkpQylr/c72N9rl5ORH02VIccR9JP1HahrkDloZ6rjeF iUvvMTnHVyk1XEjOcMgyNKeTvWIbtVteB7ZFwNgxeArPr/78qOqdSCWdDYNSW3w0Ekca C3NXyu+2JWunRZHLjt3Cccga5Z61prFyxjbYpOfaWutTIyRS87X3k5pdzdpKxroima+a SM/4cPdbYXgCg8r7Iy6rQ0G4+bYoj7U7EygN2A45l8GhuCGmdxcj6EecvlJnWo3kaMkp HqbWg5wqxvjFl5bVaOzTjIqcYRK8r6WkJe0Bcd1gLAIyXWwHEW4ww1uBi93OR95wtlra 934Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnaCDl4dUBrNiKB4Ve2nolEXbR4GLZYfgYeKbORMO6ul+mKzmORwPGaeeHfv/rB7ftHnXXAt4lwYTOmeKd5C4Go/p7MAw== X-Received: by 10.98.68.201 with SMTP id m70mr36638649pfi.49.1451341582976; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 14:26:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from xps13.localnet (115-64-131-251.static.tpgi.com.au. [115.64.131.251]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 28sm11264332pfo.43.2015.12.28.14.26.21 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 28 Dec 2015 14:26:22 -0800 (PST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Bruce Richardson Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2015 23:25:10 +0100 Message-ID: <7956038.7RoB3127Jy@xps13> Organization: 6WIND User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.1.6-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <1450704384-9986-3-git-send-email-bruce.richardson@intel.com> References: <1450704384-9986-1-git-send-email-bruce.richardson@intel.com> <1450704384-9986-3-git-send-email-bruce.richardson@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/3] version: adjust printing for new version scheme X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2015 22:26:24 -0000 2015-12-21 13:26, Bruce Richardson: > Since we are now using a year-month numbering scheme, adjust > the printing of the version to always use 2-digits for YY.MM > format. Yes It must be done for "make showversion" also. > Also omit the patch version unless there is a patch version present, > since patches for releases are rare on DPDK. This means that the > final release of 16.04 will report as 16.04, rather than 16.04.0. So the numbering of master and maintenance releases will not be consistent: 16.04 and then 16.04.1 It's true that maintenance releases are rare but it has been discussed at Dublin to have ones in future. So are we OK to omit the .0 even if not consistent? > Release candidates for it will similarly report as 16.04-rcX. Yes, 16.04-rcX looks nicer than 16.04.0-rcX. Shouldn't we take the opportunity to update RTE_VER_PREFIX from "RTE" to "DPDK"? > /** > * Major version number i.e. the x in x.y.z > */ > -#define RTE_VER_MAJOR 16 > +#define RTE_REL_YEAR 16 > > /** > * Minor version number i.e. the y in x.y.z > */ > -#define RTE_VER_MINOR 4 > +#define RTE_REL_MONTH 4 Why renaming from _VER_ to _REL_? mk/rte.sdkconfig.mk is not updated accordingly (make showversion is broken) [...] > #define RTE_VERSION RTE_VERSION_NUM( \ > - RTE_VER_MAJOR, \ > - RTE_VER_MINOR, \ > + RTE_REL_YEAR, \ > + RTE_REL_MONTH, \ > RTE_VER_PATCH_LEVEL, \ > RTE_VER_PATCH_RELEASE) Is there a better name for RTE_VER_PATCH_LEVEL and RTE_VER_PATCH_RELEASE? I think PATCH_LEVEL should be MINOR, i.e. the number increased when doing some maintenance releases. The last digit is useful for release candidates and non-official packaging (downstream consumers like Linux distros or vendors). It should be updated when delivering a patched DPDK version. RTE_VER_SUFFIX should also be updated accordingly. So is RTE_VER_PATCH_RELEASE the right name? I guess yes but not sure. [...] > + if (RTE_VER_PATCH_LEVEL > 0) > + pos += snprintf(version + pos, sizeof(version) - pos, ".%d", > RTE_VER_PATCH_LEVEL); I disagree. It's important to know that it is the first of the major release (.0). I think we can remove it elsewhere. Example: PROJECT_NUMBER in doxygen.