lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Oct]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change
Date
el es <el_es_cr <at> yahoo.co.uk> writes:

>
> H. Peter Anvin <hpa <at> zytor.com> writes:
>
> >
> > el es wrote:
> [snip]
> > > - informative : the ww and tt numbers are the week numbers of when the
> > > actual release HAPPENED, not when it is predicted.

> > Which really sucks for dealing with future releases.
> >
>
> Why ?
> What do you mean by 'future releases' ?

Oh, I just read your suggestion to move on with 3, 4 and so on. To keep it
simple.

How about adopting your scheme (simple counter) with mine (yy.ww.tt) ?

Speaking on my own, I think that some indication of WHEN the release actually
happened, encoded in the version number, IS desirable. I'm not a developer (my
field is far, far away) but personally I find the suggestions to put full year
figure in front, grossly disturbing everything we accustomed to ;)

OR.
If in my idea, we drop the .tt bit, hence, we declare, that the stable team just
continues the work on the released version, like

- 2.08.41 is the currently released 2.6.27,
- developers continue on 2.08.41-rcX, which gets promoted to 3.yy.ww when
released and so on,
- meanwhile the stable team releases 2.08.[42..52], 2.09.[01..52] and so on.

Being an indication of continuity.
As well as a revolution too ;)
> >
>
> Lukasz
>
>






\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-10-16 12:09    [W:0.118 / U:7.672 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site