Re: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change

From: david
Date: Sat Oct 18 2008 - 21:50:49 EST

On Sun, 19 Oct 2008, Jiri Kosina wrote:

On Fri, 17 Oct 2008, david@xxxxxxx wrote:

Surely some scripts will start to break as soon as the third number gets
three digits.
we've had three digit numbers in the third position before (2.3 and 2.5
went well past three digits IIRC)

Did we? I only recall 2.5.7[something] and 2.3.5[something] (plus special
2.3.99 release).

I know some versions have (I remember deploying 2.1.116 on a box across the country with no way to get at it afterwords)

Actually, I thought we could continue to use a w.x.y.z numbering
scheme, but in such a way that:
w = ($year - 2000) / 10 + 2 (so that we start from 2)
x = $year % 10
y = (number of major release in $year)
z = (number of stable version for major release w.x.y)
Then, the first major release in 2009 would be 2.9.1 and its first
-stable "child" would become In turn, the first major
release in 2010 could be 3.0.1 and so on.
if you want the part of the version number to increment based on the year,
just make it the year and don't complicate things.

In addition to that, having the kernel version dependent on year doesn't
really seem to make much sense to me. Simply said, I don't see any
relation of kernel source code contents to the current date in whatever
calendar system.

it does give an indication of how out of date the kernel you are using is.

And 2.x+1.y-rcZ+1 immediately following 2.x.y-rcZ really hurts my eyes :)

that I agree with.

David Lang
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