Re: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change

From: Giacomo A. Catenazzi
Date: Fri Oct 17 2008 - 08:46:50 EST

Greg KH wrote:
We number the kernel based on the year, and the numbers of releases we
have done this year:

For example, the first release in 2009 would be called:
The second:

If we want to be a bit more "non-zero-counting" friendly: we can start
at "1" for the number:
2009.1.0 for the first release
2009.2.0 for the second.

Then the stable releases can increment the minor number:
2009.1.1 for the first stable release
2009.1.2 for the second.
and so on.

Benefits of this is it more accuratly represents to people just how old
the kernel they are currently running is (2.6.9 would be have been
2004.9.0 on this naming scheme.)

Yes, we can handle the major/minor macros in the kernel to provide a
compatible number so that automated scripts will not break, that's not a
big deal.

Any thoughts?

What about:
- rc releases: a 2009.5.0-rc4 become suddenly 2010.0.0-rc5 ?
- a stable version in January of a kernel released in December
still has the old year? (I hope yes, but it could confuse users.)
- when (if) we need a big innovative (or incompatible) kernel
change, how to mark old and new kernels?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at