[lkml]   [2008]   [Oct]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 09:40:32AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Alan Cox wrote:
>>> So I proposed an alternative, YEAR.NUMBER. The year is easy to keep
>> Which calendaring system ?
> Presumably the Gregorian one, rooted in the Common Era, but that's sort of
> irrelevant.
> I think it's both visually cumbersome and has the problem that it is harder
> to predict future releases. The first problem can be dealt with by simply
> subtracting 2000 from the year (Altera uses this scheme for their EDA
> tools, and I didn't realize it for quite a while because it looked so
> natural), but the second is still a problem.

What is the "problem" of predicting future releases? What relies on the
actual number being "correct" some random time in the future?


greg k-h

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-10-17 20:51    [W:0.131 / U:3.568 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site