Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change | Date | Sun, 19 Oct 2008 19:57:38 +0200 |
| |
On Sunday, 19 of October 2008, david@lang.hm wrote: > On Sun, 19 Oct 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Sunday, 19 of October 2008, david@lang.hm wrote: > >> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> > >>> On Sunday, 19 of October 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). > >>>> > >>>>>> 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. > >>>> > >>>> And 2.x+1.y-rcZ+1 immediately following 2.x.y-rcZ really hurts my eyes :) > >>> > >>> Hm, why would that happen? > >> > >> with the date based numbers, that was one of the things that 'could' > >> happen as the year changed (2008.5.0-rc4 would be followed by > >> 2009.1.0-rc5) > > > > Well, in that case I think it would be reasonable to cuntinue the 2008 > > numbering so that 2009.1.0-rc5 in your example would still be 2008.5.0-rc5. > > > > That said, I kind of agree that the numbering need not be time-related. One > > alternative might be to release 2.9.0 instead of 2.6.29 and then continue in > > in such a way that each of the three numbers is always a one-digit decimal. > > Then, we'd have 2.9.0, 2.9.1 ... 2.9.9, 3.0.0, 3.0.1 etc. > > so how would you do the -stable releases?
In the same way as they are done now, ie. 2.9.0.1, 2.9.0.2 etc. I don't think there's any problem with having 2.9.1.33 for example. ;-)
Thanks, Rafael
| |