-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6.2k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Master reports itself as if it was 1.9.0 release #1558
Comments
considering to call this 1.10.0-dev or something like that, 1.9.99 while seems not realistic, is a valid dot release that we might reach at some point :-), thoughts? |
Thoughts are: 1.9.99 is not realistic patch release we can reach. However, something like 5.13.99 in a dozen of years may be. If we want to solve that right now without much bikeshedding, let's just use 1.9.999. But that scheme worked pretty well for few releases, so I don't think it should be abandoned out of the blue. (And yep, the whole idea behind it was to be able to detect anything below a release X with just numeric comparisons (e.g. via C preprocessor). |
@carlescufi : ^^^, FYI. I believe it was you who raised concerns with "99", I apologize if it was another Nordic guy. Please see if above works for you. |
I am OK with using 999, the requirements on my side where to have a "build type" (dev, rc or production), which won't be solved by this anyway and it's tracked in an issue. i.e. I need macros in version.h that allow me to find out the type of build. A string or patchlevel is not enough anyway. In fact, with the current macros I actually prefer the 999 scheme, because at least one knows that this is a dev build without having to parse a string |
Exactly, and in the corresponding ticket, I gave an idea that we can have:
|
Thanks for acking "999" btw. |
Fixes zephyrproject-rtos#1558 Signed-off-by: Anas Nashif <anas.nashif@intel.com>
Fixes #1558 Signed-off-by: Anas Nashif <anas.nashif@intel.com>
…ephyrproject-rtos#1558) Signed-off-by: Geoff Gustafson <geoff@linux.intel.com>
Aka, we need PATCHLEVEL = 99.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: