[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:0.018 / U:149.864 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site