Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 17 Oct 2008 10:42:26 -0700 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change |
| |
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 09:40:32AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Alan Cox wrote: >>> So I proposed an alternative, YEAR.NUMBER. The year is easy to keep >> Which calendaring system ? > > Presumably the Gregorian one, rooted in the Common Era, but that's sort of > irrelevant. > > I think it's both visually cumbersome and has the problem that it is harder > to predict future releases. The first problem can be dealt with by simply > subtracting 2000 from the year (Altera uses this scheme for their EDA > tools, and I didn't realize it for quite a while because it looked so > natural), but the second is still a problem.
What is the "problem" of predicting future releases? What relies on the actual number being "correct" some random time in the future?
thanks,
greg k-h
| |