Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261201AbVCBXRV (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Mar 2005 18:17:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261311AbVCBXOl (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Mar 2005 18:14:41 -0500 Received: from e33.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.131]:22144 "EHLO e33.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261201AbVCBXK7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Mar 2005 18:10:59 -0500 Subject: Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering From: Josh Boyer To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Kernel Mailing List In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 17:10:07 -0600 Message-Id: <1109805008.8290.4.camel@windu.rchland.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 994 Lines: 21 On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 14:21 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > It seems like a sensible approach, and it's not like the 2.4.x vs 2.5.x > kind of even/odd thing didn't _work_, the problems really were an issue of > too big granularity making it hard for user and developers alike. So I see > this as a tweak of the "let's drop the notion althogether for now" > decision, and just modify it to "even/odd is meaningful at all levels". I like it, but what about important security fixes or mistakes like 2.6.8.1? In those situations, would you release that kernel under the next even number and skip the odd number? Or would you release the fix under an odd number and sorta throw off the "meaning"? I'm not trying to be a pain, I'm really not. josh - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/