Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 18 Oct 2008 18:50:27 -0700 (PDT) | From | david@lang ... | Subject | Re: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change |
| |
On Sun, 19 Oct 2008, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2008, david@lang.hm wrote: > >>> Surely some scripts will start to break as soon as the third number gets >>> three digits. >> we've had three digit numbers in the third position before (2.3 and 2.5 >> went well past three digits IIRC) > > Did we? I only recall 2.5.7[something] and 2.3.5[something] (plus special > 2.3.99 release).
I know some versions have (I remember deploying 2.1.116 on a box across the country with no way to get at it afterwords)
>>> Actually, I thought we could continue to use a w.x.y.z numbering >>> scheme, but in such a way that: >>> w = ($year - 2000) / 10 + 2 (so that we start from 2) >>> x = $year % 10 >>> y = (number of major release in $year) >>> z = (number of stable version for major release w.x.y) >>> Then, the first major release in 2009 would be 2.9.1 and its first >>> -stable "child" would become 2.9.1.1. In turn, the first major >>> release in 2010 could be 3.0.1 and so on. >> if you want the part of the version number to increment based on the year, >> just make it the year and don't complicate things. > > In addition to that, having the kernel version dependent on year doesn't > really seem to make much sense to me. Simply said, I don't see any > relation of kernel source code contents to the current date in whatever > calendar system.
it does give an indication of how out of date the kernel you are using is.
> And 2.x+1.y-rcZ+1 immediately following 2.x.y-rcZ really hurts my eyes :)
that I agree with.
David Lang
| |