[lkml]   [2008]   [Oct]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
Subject[RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change

You brought this topic up a few months ago, and passed it off as
something we would discuss at the kernel summit. But that never
happened, so I figured I'd bring it up again here.

So, as someone who constantly is dealing with kernel version numbers all
the time with the -stable trees, our current numbering scheme is a pain
a times. How about this proposal instead?

We number the kernel based on the year, and the numbers of releases we
have done this year:

For example, the first release in 2009 would be called:
The second:

If we want to be a bit more "non-zero-counting" friendly: we can start
at "1" for the number:
2009.1.0 for the first release
2009.2.0 for the second.

Then the stable releases can increment the minor number:
2009.1.1 for the first stable release
2009.1.2 for the second.
and so on.

Benefits of this is it more accuratly represents to people just how old
the kernel they are currently running is (2.6.9 would be have been
2004.9.0 on this naming scheme.)

Yes, we can handle the major/minor macros in the kernel to provide a
compatible number so that automated scripts will not break, that's not a
big deal.

Any thoughts?

Let the bike-shedding begin!


greg k-h

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-10-16 02:31    [W:0.238 / U:15.664 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site