Re: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change

From: Alex Howells
Date: Mon Oct 20 2008 - 14:56:00 EST

Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Not that I care one way or the other. It's just that I don't see how
your response bears any relationship with the point Greg made. It's
just a distraction. We're talking about how to label releases, not
about guessing the release date of a kernel months ahead. One you
label it, it stays that way.


I do agree with you that kernel numbering is becoming increasingly cumbersome now the numbers are becoming larger, and a spreadsheet is becoming a handy tool for tracking all this release information.

I'm honestly not sold on any of the naming schemes proposed thusfar, but since I can't come up with a magic solution, I'll shut up about that!

What I'd love to see any changes integrate would be a simple way to spot -stable releases in the version number (ie: 2.6.16, 2.6.27, those maintained for a "long" time and hopefully by quite 'bug free') versus the rest of releases sent out on a more regular basis.

I'll immediately concede this is probably of minimal benefit to distribution maintainers who're actively following LKML and development in general, but there is a big community of folks out there using vanilla sources for their own needs who, like me, probably find it difficult/frustrating to pick a kernel version these days.

Does anyone have a suggestion how that could be accomplished?

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