Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Fri, 17 Oct 2008 14:46:27 +0200 | | From | "Giacomo A. Catenazzi" <> | | Subject | Re: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change |
| |
Greg KH wrote: > 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 > > If we want to be a bit more "non-zero-counting" friendly: we can start > at "1" for the number: > 2009.1.0 for the first release > 2009.2.0 for the second. > > Then the stable releases can increment the minor number: > 2009.1.1 for the first stable release > 2009.1.2 for the second. > and so on. > > Benefits of this is it more accuratly represents to people just how old > the kernel they are currently running is (2.6.9 would be have been > 2004.9.0 on this naming scheme.) > > Yes, we can handle the major/minor macros in the kernel to provide a > compatible number so that automated scripts will not break, that's not a > big deal. > > Any thoughts?
What about: - rc releases: a 2009.5.0-rc4 become suddenly 2010.0.0-rc5 ? - a stable version in January of a kernel released in December still has the old year? (I hope yes, but it could confuse users.) - when (if) we need a big innovative (or incompatible) kernel change, how to mark old and new kernels?
ciao cate
|  |