From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bruce Richardson Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] version: 2.3.0-rc0 Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 12:11:46 +0000 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 Cc: dev@dpdk.org To: Thomas Monjalon Return-path: Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96F07A6A for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:11:49 +0100 (CET) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1450350991-27817-1-git-send-email-thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 12:16:30PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon > --- > 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