[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] version: 2.3.0-rc0

[Bruce Richardson]

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 12:16:30PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com>
> ---
>  lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_version.h | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_version.h b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_version.h
> index bb3e9fc..6b1890e 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_version.h
> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_version.h
> @@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ extern "C" {
>  /**
>   * Minor version number i.e. the y in x.y.z
>   */
> -#define RTE_VER_MINOR 2
> +#define RTE_VER_MINOR 3
>  
>  /**
>   * Patch level number i.e. the z in x.y.z
> @@ -70,14 +70,14 @@ extern "C" {
>  /**
>   * Extra string to be appended to version number
>   */
> -#define RTE_VER_SUFFIX ""
> +#define RTE_VER_SUFFIX "-rc"
>  
>  /**
>   * Patch release number
>   *   0-15 = release candidates
>   *   16   = release
>   */
> -#define RTE_VER_PATCH_RELEASE 16
> +#define RTE_VER_PATCH_RELEASE 0
>  
>  /**
>   * Macro to compute a version number usable for comparisons
> -- 
> 2.5.2
> 

What about the discussion about the numbering of DPDK versions in future? The
latest suggest which was +1'ed a number of times was to use an Ubuntu-style
YY.MM naming scheme. I don't think there was any objections to such a scheme
so is it not premature to start naming the new release now using the old scheme?

/Bruce