Messages in this thread | | | From | el es <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change | Date | Thu, 16 Oct 2008 10:05:32 +0000 (UTC) |
| |
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 > >
| |