Messages in this thread | | | From | Harald Arnesen <> | Subject | Re: [kernel.org users] XZ Migration discussion | Date | Sun, 14 Feb 2010 15:49:20 +0100 |
| |
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx> writes:
> 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. > > 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.
Like I suggested in October 2008, but it would have been more natural at that time:
<http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=122418454113793&w=2> -- Hilsen Harald.
| |