> > Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> > > Well, the "version 2" prefix is kind of already taken by
> > > Sascha Hauers alternative implementation.
> > >
> > > Should we go for 2.x.x anyway?
> On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 11:47:22AM -0500, Ken Fuchs wrote:
> > May I suggest CC.YY.MM?
> >
> > VERSION =
> > PA
On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 11:47:22AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>
> > Well, the "version 2" prefix is kind of already taken by Sascha Hauers
> > alternative implementation.
> >
> > Should we go for 2.x.x anyway?
>
> May I suggest CC.YY.MM?
>
> VERSION =
> PATCHLEVEL =
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Well, the "version 2" prefix is kind of already taken by Sascha Hauers
> alternative implementation.
>
> Should we go for 2.x.x anyway?
May I suggest CC.YY.MM?
VERSION =
PATCHLEVEL =
SUBLEVEL =
EXTRAVERSION = or
So this month's release number would become 20.08.08.
Hi,
in general I totally ack to a new version numbering scheme.
When we are releasing U-Boot for some of our hardware this is typically done
asynchronous to the U-Boot release cycle. We (often) cannot wait until a new
U-Boot is released. So we take the current U-Boot version + build date/time
as
Feng Kan schrieb:
> Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
>> Wolfgang Denk a écrit :
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I would like to get your general opinion about changing the U-Boot
>>> version numbering scheme.
>>>
>>> To be honest, I never really understood myself how this is supposed
>>> to work and if the next
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on :
> Kumar Gala wrote:
> > On Aug 1, 2008, at 10:32 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I would like to get your general opinion about changing the
> > > U-Boot version numbering scheme.
> > >
> > > To be honest, I never really understood myse
Feng Kan a écrit :
> You can just do v2008.1.
That would be v2008.01, then, lest we want FTP sites to put november and
december releases between january and february. :)
> You can add a third field for the day for those
> really serious
> bugs:)
What, and not be able to crank out several rel
Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> Wolfgang Denk a écrit :
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I would like to get your general opinion about changing the U-Boot
>> version numbering scheme.
>>
>> To be honest, I never really understood myself how this is supposed
>> to work and if the next version should be 1.3.4 or 1
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>
> IMHO I think it is best to stick with the same version numbering
> scheme that you started with, even if it is not perfect. The
> alternative timestamp scheme is not perfect either. You can probably
> find as many advantages for one as for the other, an
Like a lot of others, I think v1.08.xx will be confusing alongside the existing
1.x.y releases.
As to the v1/v2 issues, the problem is that it's just a number and a greater
number implies progress and a unidirectional relationship. Given that v2
already exists concurrent with v1, it's misleadi
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>
> A minor :) issue I can see is that there might be *some* confusion
> because of an apparent, numerical rollback from 1.3.4 back to 1.08.xx.
> You're bound to encounter some folks who will ask, again and again, why
> you're working on 1.02.yy when 1.
Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> Ben Warren a écrit :
>> Kumar Gala wrote:
>>> On Aug 1, 2008, at 10:32 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>>>
>>>
Hello,
I would like to get your general opinion about changing the U-Boot
version numbering scheme.
To be honest, I never really underst
Ben Warren a écrit :
> Kumar Gala wrote:
>> On Aug 1, 2008, at 10:32 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I would like to get your general opinion about changing the U-Boot
>>> version numbering scheme.
>>>
>>> To be honest, I never really understood myself how this is supposed
Kumar Gala wrote:
> On Aug 1, 2008, at 10:32 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I would like to get your general opinion about changing the U-Boot
>> version numbering scheme.
>>
>> To be honest, I never really understood myself how this is supposed
>> to work and if the next vers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to get your general opinion about changing the U-Boot
> version numbering scheme.
>
> To be honest, I never really understood myself how this is supposed
> to work and if the next version should be 1.3.4 or 1.4.0 or 2.0.0, i.
> e. which ch
On Fri, 1 Aug 2008, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
That is fine but I suggest changing version to 2. If we keep it at 1 it will
be confusing because we do already have a bunch of 1.xx.xx releases. Other
than that I agree.
> Hello,
>
> I would like to get your general opinion about changing the U-Boot
>
Wolfgang Denk a écrit :
> Hello,
>
> I would like to get your general opinion about changing the U-Boot
> version numbering scheme.
>
> To be honest, I never really understood myself how this is supposed
> to work and if the next version should be 1.3.4 or 1.4.0 or 2.0.0, i.
> e. which cha
On Aug 1, 2008, at 10:32 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to get your general opinion about changing the U-Boot
> version numbering scheme.
>
> To be honest, I never really understood myself how this is supposed
> to work and if the next version should be 1.3.4 or 1.4.0 or
Hello,
I would like to get your general opinion about changing the U-Boot
version numbering scheme.
To be honest, I never really understood myself how this is supposed
to work and if the next version should be 1.3.4 or 1.4.0 or 2.0.0, i.
e. which changes / additions are important enough t
19 matches
Mail list logo
