Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 16 Oct 2008 00:34:32 -0700 (PDT) | From | david@lang ... | Subject | Re: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change |
| |
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 16.10.2008 02:25, Greg KH wrote: >> You brought this topic up a few months ago, and passed it off as >> something we would discuss at the kernel summit. But that never >> happened, so I figured I'd bring it up again here. >> >> So, as someone who constantly is dealing with kernel version numbers all >> the time with the -stable trees, our current numbering scheme is a pain >> a times. How about this proposal instead? >> >> We number the kernel based on the year, and the numbers of releases we >> have done this year: >> YEAR.NUMBER.MINOR_RELEASE >> >> For example, the first release in 2009 would be called: >> 2009.0.0 >> The second: >> 2009.1.0 >> [...] > > That afaics has one minor downside: You don't know in advance how the next > kernel is going to be called. Example: the kernel that is currently developed > could become 2008.4 (the fifth kernel in 2008) if this development cycle in > the end is one of the quicker ones and gets finished this year. But if > everything is a bit slower then it might become 2009.0 (the first one in > 2009). > > Hence people that write a lot of articles about things that happen in linux > land (like LWN.net or I do) would be forced to write sentences like "[...]the > kernel that will become 2008.3 or 2009.0 will have feature foo that works > like this[...]". That will get really confusing if you read those articles > half a year later -- especially if that kernel became 2008.3 in the end, > because foo in 2009.0 might already look quite different again...
pick a name when the merge window opens
either based on when the merge window opens, or when it's expected to be released (and accept that you may have a 2008.3 released in early 2009, or a 2009.1 released in december 2008)
David Lang
| |