Re: On Linux numbering scheme

[Artem S. Tashkinov]

----- "Tejun Heo" wrote:

> On 10/22/2010 04:00 AM, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 07:06:23PM -0500, kevin granade wrote:
> > 
> >> Any particular reason not to continue the date-oriented format and
> >> have the third number be the numerical representation of the month
> >> rather than an incrementing numbering of the releases?  It would
> still
> >> be monotonically increasing, which is the only requirement, right?
> > 
> > Why do we need to change it, anyway?
> 
> Agreed.  These days, I use just the last digit, as in kernel 36, in
> casual contexts.  It's a number as good as any other.  I don't think
> it needs to be changed actively.  If the 2.6. prefix is bothering,
> just use the last number and maybe that will become semi-official in
> the future, or maybe not.  Doesn't really matter.
> 
> -- 
> tejun

That's my point. "2.6" prefix is totally meaningless nowadays. I just
want to rejuvenate the numbering scheme and make it easy to understand
and comprehend. What's the difference between .16 and .36? Besides, I
just think these huge numbers look unsightly. Do you know any other
piece of software which has the same huge numbers?
--
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/