[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:0.103 / U:2.264 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site