lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Dec]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Can't wait for '2.8 or 3.0',or maybe: 2.8 followed by 2.10 ??
Date
In article <200312181149.25571.grahame@notofthisearth.freeserve.co.uk>,
Grahame White <grahame@notofthisearth.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
| On Thursday 18 December 2003 17:06, Balram Adlakha wrote:
| > John Bradford (john@grabjohn.com) wrote:
| > > I think we should consider introduce a policy of having .*beaver.*
| > > names for each 2.6.x release, and maybe drop the version numbers
| > > altogether during 2.7.
| > >
| > > John.
| >
| > Sounds like a cool idea, but how are we supposed to know which "name"
| > is newer?
|
| Well let's see there could be :
|
| 2.beaver.rolling
| 2.beaver.sparking
| 2.beaver.toking
| 2.beaver.passing
| 2.beaver.stoned
| 2.beaver.tripping

I take back what I just said about letting someone else name the
subversions ;-)
--
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:59    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans