Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 25 Oct 2010 05:45:13 -0400 (EDT) | From | "Artem S. Tashkinov" <> | Subject | Re: On Linux numbering scheme |
| |
----- "Tejun Heo" wrote:
> On 10/22/2010 04:00 AM, Al Viro wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 07:06:23PM -0500, kevin granade wrote: > > > >> Any particular reason not to continue the date-oriented format and > >> have the third number be the numerical representation of the month > >> rather than an incrementing numbering of the releases? It would > still > >> be monotonically increasing, which is the only requirement, right? > > > > Why do we need to change it, anyway? > > Agreed. These days, I use just the last digit, as in kernel 36, in > casual contexts. It's a number as good as any other. I don't think > it needs to be changed actively. If the 2.6. prefix is bothering, > just use the last number and maybe that will become semi-official in > the future, or maybe not. Doesn't really matter. > > -- > tejun
That's my point. "2.6" prefix is totally meaningless nowadays. I just want to rejuvenate the numbering scheme and make it easy to understand and comprehend. What's the difference between .16 and .36? Besides, I just think these huge numbers look unsightly. Do you know any other piece of software which has the same huge numbers?
| |