Messages in this thread | | | From | (bill davidsen) | Subject | Re: Can't wait for '2.8 or 3.0',or maybe: 2.8 followed by 2.10 ?? | Date | 18 Dec 2003 16:29:23 GMT |
| |
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/
| |