Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 12 Feb 2010 23:42:04 -0800 | Subject | Re: [kernel.org users] XZ Migration discussion | From | Tony Luck <> |
| |
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:03 AM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote: > 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.
This sounds like a good plan (and since we have so far failed to come up with some new feature in Linux that is so awesome that it warrants bumping the version number to 3.0 ... we might as well manufacture one, and "The HTML for the archive directory on kernel.org has gotten too big" seems a pretty good reason to me).
So the plan could be: 1) Declare 2.6.35 (or so) to be the last in the 2.6 series. 2) Define a better archive directory structure for the 3.x releases (scripts will have to be changed anyway to handle the 3.x change) 3) Keep all the .gz and .bz2 in the old 2.x hierarchy 4) Only have .xz in the new 3.x directories.
This should give time for people to update scripts and for xz compression tools to become widely available.
People on the bleeding edge versions are the most likely ones to update their tools promptly. People still using 2.x series kernels can keep using their old tools forever.
-Tony
| |