Re: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change

From: Greg KH
Date: Fri Oct 17 2008 - 14:49:33 EST

On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 09:40:32AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Alan Cox wrote:
>>> So I proposed an alternative, YEAR.NUMBER. The year is easy to keep
>> Which calendaring system ?
> Presumably the Gregorian one, rooted in the Common Era, but that's sort of
> irrelevant.
> I think it's both visually cumbersome and has the problem that it is harder
> to predict future releases. The first problem can be dealt with by simply
> subtracting 2000 from the year (Altera uses this scheme for their EDA
> tools, and I didn't realize it for quite a while because it looked so
> natural), but the second is still a problem.

What is the "problem" of predicting future releases? What relies on the
actual number being "correct" some random time in the future?


greg k-h
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