lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Oct]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: The naming wars continue...
From
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]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans