Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 12:30:57 -0400 From: David Schultz <das@FreeBSD.ORG> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG, kensmith@cse.Buffalo.EDU, src-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, bz@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: svn commit: r193241 - in head: . sys/sys Message-ID: <20090604163057.GA27090@zim.MIT.EDU> In-Reply-To: <20090604.101755.1493773383.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <200906011807.n51I7ccW086812@svn.freebsd.org> <1243880140.25229.23.camel@bauer.cse.buffalo.edu> <20090604151959.GA26524@zim.MIT.EDU> <20090604.101755.1493773383.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jun 04, 2009, M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <20090604151959.GA26524@zim.MIT.EDU> > David Schultz <das@FreeBSD.org> writes: > : On Mon, Jun 01, 2009, Ken Smith wrote: > : > It was noted we're close to running out of numbers we can use before we > : > hit code freeze and the branch for the release. Since we're entering > : > code slush at the end of today in theory all changes that would warrant > : > a bump in __FreeBSD_version are supposed to be done. But it wouldn't > : > surprise me if we have one or two or so things that come along between > : > now and when we hit code freeze and the branch. So we need to be a bit > : > conservative with this. Please be sure to coordinate anything that > : > might require a bump in __FreeBSD_version with re@ from now on. If it > : > turns out things do come along that require bumps we'll need to "batch > : > them up" having one bump represent several changes. > : > : To avoid this sort of problem in the future, how about adding a > : digit to __FreeBSD_version in 9-CURRENT? Admittedly, a lot of the > : bumps in 8.X were probably unnecessary, but it's good that people > : are being cautious and documenting their incompatible changes. > > We can avoid this problem by not being so bump-happy. > > Adding an extra digit was painful when we did it before. A number of > subtle things broke (like the output of file). > > Part of the problem here is that we want to ship FreeBSD 8.0 as > '800100' which is just historical convention: > > * scheme is: <major><two digit minor>Rxx > * 'R' is 0 if release branch or x.0-CURRENT before RELENG_*_0 > * is created, otherwise 1. > > We could easily up that to '5' for the release so we have 499 > entries. There aren't so many things that depend on this convention in > the tree (I couldn't find any in a quick, informal survey). Sounds good. We might want to use 7 or 8 instead of 5 to account for the fact that changes requiring a bump are more frequent in CURRENT than in STABLE.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090604163057.GA27090>