Re: Linux 3.0-rc1

Re: Linux 3.0-rc1

[Sedat Dilek]

[ Please CC me I am not subscribed to LKML ]

[QUOTE]
h, and as some people already noticed, the numbering means that the
tar-balls and patches are now in a new directory:

    /pub/linux/kernel/v3.0

(under "testing/", since that's what we do with -rc releases).
However, I did *not* rename the git tree, because that would just be a
huge inconvenience to git users, so it's still in the same old place
and yes, that means that my git tree is still called "linux-2.6.git"
on kernel.org. But it has the v3.0-rc1 tag in it.

I'll probably add a symlink or something, if people really hate being
reminded about our long history with the "2.6" numbering. But that
won't be until closer to the real release, methinks.

                            Linus
[/QUOTE]

First of all, congrats to Linux v3.0-rc1!

As you have found by yourself this new numbering forces a bit of
rethinking some of (y)our (daily) workflows.
( The new location of Linux v3.0-rc1 tarball was my 1st "problem" when
converting my kernel-buildsystem. )

[A] REPOSITORY NAMES

BUT...
...your GIT tree is still called "linux-2.6" :-).
Lots of other GIT repsoitories still use a prefix "linux-2.6-", like
linux-2.6-tip, linux-2.6-rcu, linux-2.6-acpi, or look at net-2.6 or
drm-2.6.
NOW...
...it would be a good point to rename all repos to a more general/common name.
Especially, the "linux-2.6-" can go to /dev/nirvana.
[1] lists all trees merged into linux-next and can be used as an overview.

Here some examples with proposals for change:

EXAMPLE #1: Repos containing "linux-2.6-" prefix (IMHO even "linux-"
as prefix can be dropped)

1. linux-2.6-tip -> tip
2. linux-2.6-rcu -> rcu
3. linux-2.6-acpi -> acpi

EXAMPLE #2: Repos containing "-2.6" as suffix

1. net-2.6 -> net
2. drm-2.6 -> drm
3. wireless-2.6 -> wireless
4. sound-2.6 -> sound

[ Gold medal to Ted for his ext4 GIT tree :-). ]

EXAMPLE #3: WTF trees not fitting #1 or #2

In general: Use the directory-name where your drivers are stored, see
also MAINTAINERS file.

EXAMPLE #4: Repos using a separate GIT repo with -next suffix (for linux-next)

1. net-next-2.6 -> net-next
2. wireless-next-2.6 -> wireless-next

I know people won't like the idea on 1st look and hate me for no real
benefit/new features, but...
...PLEASE...
...don't start renaming to "3.0", in a decade we have the same problem
:-( and thus do it right from the beginning.

Thoughts?

[B] MY EXPERIENCES WITH v3.0-rc1

Here my 1st impressions:
I am mostly on linux-next and working with an adopted
kernel-buildsystem from Debian kernel team.

As a quick workaround, I changed package-name from "linux-2.6" to "linux-3.0".
This also led to a new folder linux-3.0 below $HOME/src.

A two digits major version number like 3.0(-rc1) is (currently) not
accepted, so the first line of debian/changelog looks like this:

linux-3.0 (3.0.0~rc1-1~next20110530.dileks1) UNRELEASED; urgency=low

So, I used for now 3.0.0~rc1 (Note: Debian uses ~rcX in changelog files).

IIRC some READMEs, copyright files below debian-dir etc. have to be
adopted, too.
But as this work is for my personal amusement, I build 1st and enjoy...

$ cat /proc/version
Linux version 3.0.0-rc1-next20110530.1-686-small (Debian
3.0.0~rc1-1~next20110530.dileks1) (sedat.dilek@gmail.com) (gcc version
4.6.1 20110526 (prerelease) (Debian 4.6.0-10) ) #1 SMP Mon May 30
08:15:10 CEST 2011

- Sedat -


[1] http://git.us.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git;a=blob;f=Next/Trees

Re: Linux 3.0-rc1

[Sedat Dilek]

Cool, Jens started to setup a new GIT repository with a more
"general/common" for his block-tree (see below):

linux-2.6-block -> linux-block

"description	Linux 3.x block layer tree(s)"

Would be nice to see more maintainer following :-).

- Sedat -

[1] http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/axboe/linux-block.git;a=summary
[2] http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/axboe/linux-2.6-block.git;a=summary

On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 11:28 AM, Sedat Dilek
<sedat.dilek@googlemail.com> wrote:
> [ Please CC me I am not subscribed to LKML ]
>
> [QUOTE]
> h, and as some people already noticed, the numbering means that the
> tar-balls and patches are now in a new directory:
>
>    /pub/linux/kernel/v3.0
>
> (under "testing/", since that's what we do with -rc releases).
> However, I did *not* rename the git tree, because that would just be a
> huge inconvenience to git users, so it's still in the same old place
> and yes, that means that my git tree is still called "linux-2.6.git"
> on kernel.org. But it has the v3.0-rc1 tag in it.
>
> I'll probably add a symlink or something, if people really hate being
> reminded about our long history with the "2.6" numbering. But that
> won't be until closer to the real release, methinks.
>
>                            Linus
> [/QUOTE]
>
> First of all, congrats to Linux v3.0-rc1!
>
> As you have found by yourself this new numbering forces a bit of
> rethinking some of (y)our (daily) workflows.
> ( The new location of Linux v3.0-rc1 tarball was my 1st "problem" when
> converting my kernel-buildsystem. )
>
> [A] REPOSITORY NAMES
>
> BUT...
> ...your GIT tree is still called "linux-2.6" :-).
> Lots of other GIT repsoitories still use a prefix "linux-2.6-", like
> linux-2.6-tip, linux-2.6-rcu, linux-2.6-acpi, or look at net-2.6 or
> drm-2.6.
> NOW...
> ...it would be a good point to rename all repos to a more general/common name.
> Especially, the "linux-2.6-" can go to /dev/nirvana.
> [1] lists all trees merged into linux-next and can be used as an overview.
>
> Here some examples with proposals for change:
>
> EXAMPLE #1: Repos containing "linux-2.6-" prefix (IMHO even "linux-"
> as prefix can be dropped)
>
> 1. linux-2.6-tip -> tip
> 2. linux-2.6-rcu -> rcu
> 3. linux-2.6-acpi -> acpi
>
> EXAMPLE #2: Repos containing "-2.6" as suffix
>
> 1. net-2.6 -> net
> 2. drm-2.6 -> drm
> 3. wireless-2.6 -> wireless
> 4. sound-2.6 -> sound
>
> [ Gold medal to Ted for his ext4 GIT tree :-). ]
>
> EXAMPLE #3: WTF trees not fitting #1 or #2
>
> In general: Use the directory-name where your drivers are stored, see
> also MAINTAINERS file.
>
> EXAMPLE #4: Repos using a separate GIT repo with -next suffix (for linux-next)
>
> 1. net-next-2.6 -> net-next
> 2. wireless-next-2.6 -> wireless-next
>
> I know people won't like the idea on 1st look and hate me for no real
> benefit/new features, but...
> ...PLEASE...
> ...don't start renaming to "3.0", in a decade we have the same problem
> :-( and thus do it right from the beginning.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> [B] MY EXPERIENCES WITH v3.0-rc1
>
> Here my 1st impressions:
> I am mostly on linux-next and working with an adopted
> kernel-buildsystem from Debian kernel team.
>
> As a quick workaround, I changed package-name from "linux-2.6" to "linux-3.0".
> This also led to a new folder linux-3.0 below $HOME/src.
>
> A two digits major version number like 3.0(-rc1) is (currently) not
> accepted, so the first line of debian/changelog looks like this:
>
> linux-3.0 (3.0.0~rc1-1~next20110530.dileks1) UNRELEASED; urgency=low
>
> So, I used for now 3.0.0~rc1 (Note: Debian uses ~rcX in changelog files).
>
> IIRC some READMEs, copyright files below debian-dir etc. have to be
> adopted, too.
> But as this work is for my personal amusement, I build 1st and enjoy...
>
> $ cat /proc/version
> Linux version 3.0.0-rc1-next20110530.1-686-small (Debian
> 3.0.0~rc1-1~next20110530.dileks1) (sedat.dilek@gmail.com) (gcc version
> 4.6.1 20110526 (prerelease) (Debian 4.6.0-10) ) #1 SMP Mon May 30
> 08:15:10 CEST 2011
>
> - Sedat -
>
>
> [1] http://git.us.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git;a=blob;f=Next/Trees
>