linux-kernel - Re: Linux 2.6.32-rc3

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20091006153632.GA29795@elte.hu>
Date:	Tue, 6 Oct 2009 17:36:32 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Dirk Hohndel <hohndel@...radead.org>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.32-rc3


* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 6 Oct 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > We can ignore that and say "hehe, you dont understand non-linear 
> > trees and ran git remote update blindly, too bad for you", or we 
> > might do something to make things more transparent and reduce the 
> > confusion.
> 
> You are missing the point.
> 
> The only thing we can do is to teach people that the Makefile version 
> isn't too important, and that it really doesn't tell very much.
> 
> Trying to tweak it to make it somehow "more meaningful" is a BAD 
> THING, because it continues to spoon-feed people a lie.
> 
> The cake is a lie. In between kernel versions, you can't rely on the 
> Makefile.  You should teach yourself (and others) THAT, rather than 
> trying to teach people to believe the lie even more.
> 
> Once you start believing the lie, suddenly all the subtrees will start 
> thinking that now _their_ kernel versions are bad, so now they'll 
> start to want to make the same idiotic changes to their Makefiles, or 
> maybe they'll decide that they don't want to pull tagged releases, but 
> the "one after the tag so that they'll get the updated Makefile".
> 
> And even if they don't do that idiocy, the whole "the version number 
> is meaningful outside of releases" thing leads to brain damage.

hm, i think you ignored (or missed, or found irrelevant) my first 
suggested variant:

 v2.6.31
 v2.6.31+
 v2.6.32-rc1
 v2.6.32-rc1+
 ..
 v2.6.32-rc9
 v2.6.32-rc9+
 v2.6.32

The '+' sign says that it's more than .31.

That defuses the 'lie' of trying to linerize a multi-thousand-node graph 
down into some catchy human-readable string pretty efficiently i think. 
It doesnt tell us precisely what that '+' means - it could be goodness 
or it could be badness.

_That_ i think is a lot harder to confuse with the real .31 than a 
v2.6.31-1234-g16123c4 version string.

My tweak #2, adding -rc0 indeed brings in problems, it's too artificial 
to do it right after .31 gets released - and if we dont do it then we 
cannot do it later either. (so we cannot really do it)

[ It might bring in some advantages too btw. A pull request to you for a 
  tree that is -rc0 based means it got rebased straight in the merge 
  window => bad. Such a thing would be apparent at a glance. 'Good' 
  trees should be based on some known good version of the previous 
  stable kernel cycle. ]

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