Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 4 Mar 2005 00:45:23 +0100 | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering |
| |
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 03:17:52PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > That's the only way it _can_ work. The maintainer of 2.6.x.y shouldn't be
Andrew, what about my suggestion of shifting left x.y of 8 bits? ;) Do we risk the magic 2.7 number to get us stuck in unstable mode for 2 years instead of 2 months? Doesn't 2.6.x.y pose the same risk but by also breaking the numbering and the stable kernel identification for no good reason? (ignoring the "2.6." part that carries no useful info anymore ;) - 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/
| |