lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Oct]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [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


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-10-17 20:51    [W:2.289 / U:0.200 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site