Re: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change
From: Kristoffer Ericson
Date: Thu Oct 16 2008 - 06:15:24 EST
Please don't use time indications inside kernel versions, it just gets confusing
(even more so if you use yy mm dd).
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 10:05:32 +0000 (UTC)
el es <el_es_cr@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> el es <el_es_cr <at> yahoo.co.uk> writes:
> > H. Peter Anvin <hpa <at> zytor.com> writes:
> > >
> > > el es wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > > - informative : the ww and tt numbers are the week numbers of when the
> > > > actual release HAPPENED, not when it is predicted.
> > > Which really sucks for dealing with future releases.
> > >
> > Why ?
> > What do you mean by 'future releases' ?
> Oh, I just read your suggestion to move on with 3, 4 and so on. To keep it
> How about adopting your scheme (simple counter) with mine (yy.ww.tt) ?
> Speaking on my own, I think that some indication of WHEN the release actually
> happened, encoded in the version number, IS desirable. I'm not a developer (my
> field is far, far away) but personally I find the suggestions to put full year
> figure in front, grossly disturbing everything we accustomed to ;)
> If in my idea, we drop the .tt bit, hence, we declare, that the stable team just
> continues the work on the released version, like
> - 2.08.41 is the currently released 2.6.27,
> - developers continue on 2.08.41-rcX, which gets promoted to 3.yy.ww when
> released and so on,
> - meanwhile the stable team releases 2.08.[42..52], 2.09.[01..52] and so on.
> Being an indication of continuity.
> As well as a revolution too ;)
> > >
> > Lukasz
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Kristoffer Ericson <kristoffer.ericson@xxxxxxxxx>
Description: PGP signature