Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262999AbVCDTsW (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Mar 2005 14:48:22 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263026AbVCDTsC (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Mar 2005 14:48:02 -0500 Received: from mail.kroah.org ([69.55.234.183]:14821 "EHLO perch.kroah.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262998AbVCDTWT (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Mar 2005 14:22:19 -0500 Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 11:21:52 -0800 From: Greg KH To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Alan Cox , Andrew Morton , jgarzik@pobox.com, davem@davemloft.net, Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering Message-ID: <20050304192152.GB30241@kroah.com> References: <20050303151752.00527ae7.akpm@osdl.org> <1109894511.21781.73.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050303182820.46bd07a5.akpm@osdl.org> <1109933804.26799.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050304032820.7e3cb06c.akpm@osdl.org> <1109940685.26799.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050304183804.GB29857@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1454 Lines: 31 On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 11:12:22AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > But automation takes time to build up and learn, and in the meantime doing > it by hand and learning early is definitely the right thing to do. Maybe > you doing it by hand just makes it clear that I was wrong about the need > for some strict rules that are automatically enforced in the first place. Heh, it will have to be done by hand for a while, as I don't think any of us want to write a kernel-patch-managemement-system in our spare time. Although, I do know that osdl's PLM at one time was planned to be such a tool, I'll go kick the developers over there to see what they say... > > And if you disagree, what _should_ we call it? "-sucker" isn't good, as > > it only describes the people creating the tree, not any of the users :) > > Let's try with the 2.6.x.y numbering scheme, it's simple, and maybe it > ends up being sufficient. I just wanted to bring up the point that I don't > think the sucker tree _has_ to be seen as a 2.6.x.y tree at all. Fair enough, I'll stick with 2.6.x.y, as I think it's a good representation of what people expect. If people start objecting, I'm always open for change. thanks, greg k-h - 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/