[PATCH 1/2] Staging: hv: Add proper versioning to HV drivers
hjanssen at microsoft.com
Thu Feb 11 23:11:26 UTC 2010
>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
>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!
More information about the devel