Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 16 Oct 2008 14:05:31 -0400 | From | "John Stoffel" <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change |
| |
>>>>> "Theodore" == Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu> writes:
Theodore> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 04:26:19PM +0200, markus reichelt wrote: >> Why not just keep it? It has worked so far, and from a strictly >> end-user point of view I cannot see any advantages at all with a new >> scheme. The ideas mentioned so far don't cut it either.
Theodore> I'd cast a vote for keeping it as well. "2.6" is actually a Theodore> great marker so that people know that it's highly likely the Theodore> version number is for the Linux kernel. Contrast "I'm Theodore> running 2.6.27" versus "I'm running 27" (huh, what does that Theodore> mean?) or "I'm running the 27 kernel" or "I'm running Linux Theodore> kernel version 27" or worse yet "I'm running 2008-03". Theodore> Something like "2.6.27" is just easier to say, and less Theodore> prone to misunderstanding/confusion.
I dunno... I like the *idea* of a date string, but maybe it needs to be in parallel and not replace the 2.6.x we have currently? God knows a bunch of stuff is going to break when we get to 2.6.100 or 2.>6 or 3.x or whatever.
But, having something which encodes the release date into the version string would be useful as well. On my home debian box I get:
> uname -a Linux jfsnew 2.6.26 #17 SMP Mon Jul 21 18:58:42 EDT 2008 i686 GNU/Linux
So having "2.6.16 (2008/MM/DD) #17 ..." would be great with me. But people would need to think it through more carefully...
John
| |