RE: [PATCH 1/2] Staging: hv: Add proper versioning to HV drivers

[Hank Janssen]

>In short I would strongly advise against doing this, unless you are
>willing to attempt to keep this up to date, and in reality, just ignore
>the number as it means nothing.
>
>This is also especially relevant given that Linux drivers are tightly
>tied to the kernel version they are running on, as APIs change
>constantly over time.  You can not just take one version of a driver on
>one release, and drop it in another kernel version, without usually
>changing something.  That change then "invalidates" the version number
>scheme :)
>
>Does this make sense?

Absolutely, Trying to satisfy internal requests do not always line up to 
external standards in the Linux Kernel. I agree with pretty much all you
said. I think we have come up with something that we all can live with. 

>> Would you like me to re-roll the patch to remove the DATE/TIME stuff
>> And add the explanation for versioning as comments to the code?
>
>Yes, please do, and possibly drop the "minor" number, otherwise I am
>going to have fun incrementing it with every single code change I do to
>the drivers.  That would be what, version 264 or something by now?  :)

I think it should be even higher than that :)  But it was never intended to be
used by anybody other than MS devs submitting code. 

I just submitted a new patch taking into account all that you requested.

As always, thanks for your help!

thanks,

Hank.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/