Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 17 Oct 2008 10:40:52 -0700 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change |
| |
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 02:46:27PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote: > 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 ?
Sure, what's the big deal?
> - a stable version in January of a kernel released in December > still has the old year? (I hope yes, but it could confuse users.)
stable versions would not modify the year.
> - when (if) we need a big innovative (or incompatible) kernel > change, how to mark old and new kernels?
Based on our current development model, this isn't an issue.
thanks,
greg k-h
| |