Re: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change

[david]

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 2.9.1.1.  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it does give an indication of how out of date the kernel you are using is.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  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/