![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 11:03:56PM -0400, Wakko Warner wrote: > > The fact is, Linux naming has always sucked. Well, at least the versioning > > I've used. Others tend to be more organized. Me, I'm the "artistic" type, > > so I sometimes try to do something new, and invariably stupid. > > Given that the versioning was supposedly <major>.<minor>.<patchlevel> and > the difference between 2.4 and 2.6 was substantial, why not just bump > <major> instead of the minor. Then we'd have 3.0, 3.1, 4.0, 4.1.1 (for > stupid mistakes). Isn't it time we move off the 2.x series and start > thinking of the 3.x series? Yes - lets stick to fewer numbers. They can count faster, instead of having a long string of them. I hope linux doesn't end up like X. "X11R6.8.1" The "X" itself is a counter, although it is understandable if it never increments to "Y". But that "11" doesn't change much, and then there are three more numbers. :-/ I think two numbers are enough. If "4.1" was a scre-up, release "4.2" instead of a "4.1.1". People shouldn�'t try to readtoo much information from the number structure - there are logs, docs and websites for that. Helge Hafting - 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 14:07 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||