lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Dec]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: Can't wait for '2.8 or 3.0',or maybe: 2.8 followed by 2.10 ??
    Date
    In article <200312181149.25571.grahame@notofthisearth.freeserve.co.uk>,
    Grahame White <grahame@notofthisearth.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
    | On Thursday 18 December 2003 17:06, Balram Adlakha wrote:
    | > John Bradford (john@grabjohn.com) wrote:
    | > > I think we should consider introduce a policy of having .*beaver.*
    | > > names for each 2.6.x release, and maybe drop the version numbers
    | > > altogether during 2.7.
    | > >
    | > > John.
    | >
    | > Sounds like a cool idea, but how are we supposed to know which "name"
    | > is newer?
    |
    | Well let's see there could be :
    |
    | 2.beaver.rolling
    | 2.beaver.sparking
    | 2.beaver.toking
    | 2.beaver.passing
    | 2.beaver.stoned
    | 2.beaver.tripping

    I take back what I just said about letting someone else name the
    subversions ;-)
    --
    bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
    CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
    Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:59    [W:0.023 / U:59.652 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site