[lkml]   [2008]   [Jul]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Kernel version : what about scheme ?
    Jan Engelhardt <jengelh <at>> writes:

    > >The scheme to be, that is :
    > >
    > >s - series, as it is now (freedom to Linus to bump it to 3 when BKL is removed
    > >for example ;) )
    > >yy - two (in a hundred years, three) digits of the year
    > >Now the interesting part begins which is
    > >ww - the number of the week of the release. This will be between 1 and 52 (53)
    > >tt - the number of the week of stable release. As above.
    > Interesting idea.

    Thanks :)

    > -stable usually overlaps with master. But I don't like version
    > numbers long as binutils and "" have.

    Yes, master and stable accumulate the same patches, I know. Only master takes
    new code, whereas -stable does not.

    This however tells how long did it take to produce the -stable release out of
    Linus's release ;) And it does not break the current habits - just abuses them a
    bit ;)
    And tells you how long the version was around there without another -stable
    release too. Just by looking onto the version string, quick, sortable in
    meaningful way, all sorts of pluses there ;)

    IMO, the kernel is so mature already, and the development is so fast, and the
    changes not always so fundamental, that the version in the old sense becomes
    irrelevant - it is not the 2.4->2.6 transition days any more ;)

    Lukasz (btw sorry I forgot to sign myself last time ;)

     \ /
      Last update: 2008-07-17 12:41    [W:0.021 / U:15.216 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site