Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 12 Feb 2010 13:54:03 -0800 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: [kernel.org users] XZ Migration discussion |
| |
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 01:25:34PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:03:26AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > > 3* Create a new subdirectory for every 2.6.x kernel, and move all the > > > related files there. This would shrink the main index drastically, and > > > each subdirectory would have a reasonable size (except maybe 2.6.16 and > > > 2.6.27.) Oddly enough this has been done for the files under testing/ > > > already, so I am curious why we don't do it for the release files (and > > > the testing/incr/ files, while we're at it.) > > > > Well, part of the reason why is that we're functionally "stuck" on 2.6; > > a prefix which really has lost all meaning. > > > > It might open up the question if we shouldn't just do a Solaris and drop > > the leading 2 (so the next kernel would be 6.33) or call the kernel > > after that 3.0 instead of 2.6.34, and then 3.1 instead of 2.6.35. > > Damn, we forgot to have that fight at Kernel Summit last year.
No one wanted to take it on :(
> I'm in favour of the 3.0 / 3.1 / 3.2 with stable@ being responsible for > 3.0.1, 3.0.2, 3.1.1, etc.
I'm in favor of almost _anything_ new, the current numbering scheme drives me crazy, but then, I'm the one having to deal with it more than anyone these days...
thanks,
greg k-h
| |