Re: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change

[Kristoffer Ericson]

Please don't use time indications inside kernel versions, it just gets confusing
(even more so if you use yy mm dd).


On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 10:05:32 +0000 (UTC)
el es <el_es_cr@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> el es <el_es_cr <at> yahoo.co.uk> writes:
> 
> > 
> > H. Peter Anvin <hpa <at> zytor.com> writes:
> > 
> > > 
> > > el es wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > > - informative : the ww and tt numbers are the week numbers of when the 
> > > > actual release HAPPENED, not when it is predicted.
> 
> > > Which really sucks for dealing with future releases.
> > > 
> > 
> > Why ? 
> > What do you mean by 'future releases' ? 
> 
> Oh, I just read your suggestion to move on with 3, 4 and so on. To keep it 
> simple.
> 
> How about adopting your scheme (simple counter) with mine (yy.ww.tt) ?
> 
> Speaking on my own, I think that some indication of WHEN the release actually
> happened, encoded in the version number, IS desirable. I'm not a developer (my
> field is far, far away) but personally I find the suggestions to put full year
> figure in front, grossly disturbing everything we accustomed to ;)
> 
> OR.
> If in my idea, we drop the .tt bit, hence, we declare, that the stable team just
> continues the work on the released version, like
> 
> - 2.08.41 is the currently released 2.6.27,
> - developers continue on 2.08.41-rcX, which gets promoted to 3.yy.ww when 
> released and so on,
> - meanwhile the stable team releases 2.08.[42..52], 2.09.[01..52] and so on. 
> 
> Being an indication of continuity.
> As well as a revolution too ;)
> > > 
> > 
> > Lukasz
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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/


-- 
Kristoffer Ericson <kristoffer.ericson@xxxxxxxxx>

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature