Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756027AbYGOHYR (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jul 2008 03:24:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753964AbYGOHYD (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jul 2008 03:24:03 -0400 Received: from ik-out-1112.google.com ([66.249.90.176]:49563 "EHLO ik-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753880AbYGOHYB (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jul 2008 03:24:01 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=eJ58goipITVZqSnfMcp7qdHIoE75JjTYBrO0mQe+VPGEuzmxfAF4hFP3/+ZeKgHJyV d6oAApLpay9M+5+6O7xa5RXiF6VxJj+TYmgwYTG/m/42AK+doislYFKWdtlIxFLzlMG4 zv91Jnek60BjCDu0hDYzIQ7fhenfvwls2cdgo= Message-ID: <6d291e080807150023v6fe2cdb4t4c21b550883dd7a1@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 02:23:59 -0500 From: "Stoyan Gaydarov" To: "Willy Tarreau" Subject: Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7? Cc: david@lang.hm, "Linus Torvalds" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Alan Cox" , gorcunov@gmail.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mingo@elte.hu In-Reply-To: <20080715053101.GJ1369@1wt.eu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <6d291e080807141910m573b29b2t753ea7c4db09902d@mail.gmail.com> <6d291e080807141931g3080c94cic94f503c1a18523b@mail.gmail.com> <20080715053101.GJ1369@1wt.eu> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2874 Lines: 62 On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 12:31 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 08:55:59PM -0700, david@lang.hm wrote: >> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> >> >>Does it have to be even numbers only? >> > >> >No. But the even/odd thing is still so fresh in peoples memory (despite us >> >not having used it for years), and I think some projects aped us on it, so >> >if I didn't change the numbering setup, but just wanted to reset the minor >> >number, I'd probably jump from 2.6 to 2.8 just for historical reasons. >> > >> >But I could also see the second number as being the "year", and 2008 would >> >get 2.8, and then next year I'd make the first release of 2009 be 2.9.1 >> >(and probably avoid the ".0" just because it again has the connotations of >> >a "big new untested release", which is not true in a date-based numbering >> >scheme). And then 2010 would be 3.0.1 etc.. >> >> Ok, I'll jump in. >> >> I don't have strong feelings either, but I do have comments >> >> 1. for the historical reasons you allude to above going to a completely >> different numbering system would be a nice thing >> >> 2. I do like involving the year, but I think 2008/2009/2010 are much >> clearer then 2.8/2.9/3.0 let people shorten it verbally, but still realize >> that it's a full year being referred to. >> >> 3. avoid using the month of the release (which ubuntu does), first you >> aren't going to predict the month of relese ahead of time (so what will >> the -rc's be called, the year is fairly clear and it's not _that_ bad if >> 2008.4 happens to come out in Jan 2009). also too many people don't >> understand that 8.10 is between 8.9 and 8.11, not between 8.0 and 8.2 > > That's probably why openbsd jumps from 3.9 to 4.0. I like such a numbering > too. It compacts 3 numbers into 2 (like we had before) but without any > major/minor notion. You just bump each new version by 0.1 at a somewhat > regular rate. Having the year and a sub-version is fine too, but I think > it adds unnecessary digits. Or maybe jump to 8.X for 2008, then 9.X in > 2009 and 10.X in 2010 ? That way, we have both the date and the simplicity. > And it's not like we really care about version 1000 in year 3000. > >> so my prefrence (mild as it is) goes to YYYY.r.s (r=release, s=stable) > > agreed, but with Y.r.s :-) Interesting idea but that would still get us to the 20.1.5 and that just seems really high, even if its based on year not on number of releases. Although I still wanted to know about the original change between 2.4 to 2.6 and what other then the version numbering prompted the change > > Willy > > -Stoyan -- 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/