>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 >scheme :) > >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! thanks, Hank. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
