Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753443AbYGSIBS (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Jul 2008 04:01:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751680AbYGSIBD (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Jul 2008 04:01:03 -0400 Received: from vapor.isi.edu ([128.9.64.64]:33603 "EHLO vapor.isi.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751282AbYGSIBB (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Jul 2008 04:01:01 -0400 Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2008 01:00:02 -0700 From: Craig Milo Rogers To: Jan Engelhardt Cc: Linus Torvalds , Stoyan Gaydarov , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alan Cox , gorcunov@gmail.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mingo@elte.hu Subject: Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7? Message-ID: <20080719080002.GA11272@isi.edu> References: <6d291e080807141910m573b29b2t753ea7c4db09902d@mail.gmail.com> <6d291e080807141931g3080c94cic94f503c1a18523b@mail.gmail.com> <20080717195625.GC6777@isi.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: rogers@jib.isi.edu Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 5132 Lines: 121 On 08.07.17, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Thursday 2008-07-17 21:56, Craig Milo Rogers wrote: > > > Use 2.8 in 2008, 2.9 in 2009, 2.10 in 2010, etc? > > Follow the thread. :) Actually, I did, which was why I thought my succinct sequence was sufficient. Here's what I meant to convey, in words: use the millennium as the major version number, the year-of-millennium as the minor version number, and (by implication) the usual release and stable suffixes. This sequence had not been proposed yet in the thread, perhaps for some reason like it's a stupid idea, since it will soon violate the largish meaningless number rule in the year-of-millennium. In case you think I'm mistaken in my assertation that it hasn't been proposed before in the thread, the rest of this message summarizes the pertinent posts in the thread: In , Linus Torvalds proposed two possible new patterns: yyyy.month decade.year.release In , Linus Torvalds proposed this pattern: 2.8.release in 2008, 2.9.release in 2009, 3.0.release in 2010 Linux also expressed a dislike for large, meaningless numbers. In , David Lang expressed a preference for yyyy.release, and expressed a dislike for yyyy.month on two grounds: 1) it's hard to predict the release month, so how should the -rc's be named, and 2) some people don't understand that 8.10 comes after 8.9. He then proposed: yyyy.r.s (r=release, s=stable, as at present) In <20080715053101.GJ1369@1wt.eu>, Willy Tarreau proposed: y.r.s (y = yyyy - 2000), e.g. use 9.r.s in 2009, 10.r.s in 2010 In <487C4646.7020905@gmail.com>, Rafael C. de Almeida seconded 8.x, 9.x, 10.x, and commented that neither Linux nor any of us would live long enough to worry about 101.x. [I eschew such pessimism. :-)] There were some comments that didn't propose alternative sequences (which I may skip mentioning from here on), then in <87skubxxtq.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> Andi Kleen proposed using a single number like Solaris. In <20080715133801.546338c1@the-village.bc.nu>, Alan Cox commented that 2008 is specific to a particular Western calendar (which leads to amusing trains of thought about Linux having different version numbers in countries that have different calendars. Version number locale, anyone?). He proposed Unix epoch time: 38.x In <1216125715.10312.4.camel@localhost>, Kasper Sandberg said he likes the current system, with the major number changing when something important happens. [He didn't define "important".] In <200807151518.59338.info@gnebu.es>, Kasper Sandberg proposed avoiding largish numbers for a while by going to 3.0 in 2009, then incrementing releases by a tenth, with the stable version coming after that: 3.1.x, 3.2,x, ... 3.9.x, 4.0.x In <20080715163652.GA12728@lgserv3.stud.cs.uit.no>, Tobias Brox proposed: YYYY.r#.s# (meaning that the letter "r" would preceed the relese number, and the letter "s" would preceed the stable number) In <487CE70B.9070506@greyfade.us>, Charles grey wolf Banas proposed using a Linux epoch decade as the first number, with the minor number being the year in that decade. I think this is the same as the y.r.s proposal, except maybe off by one, given that Linux was first released in 1991 and not 1990. In <487D7781.6000407@keyaccess.nl>, Rene Herman proposed [somewhat arbitrary] transition to 2.8 and 2.9, and specified that 3.0 should be until when world domination by Linux is near. There were discussions about feature-based numbering. In , Adrian Bunk suggested that the major number should jump whenever there was a big flag day. In , Jan Engelhardt proposed the rule that the minor version number should be incremented every 6 to 8 releases, within the current scheme. In <20080717195625.GC6777@isi.edu>, Craig Milo Rogers proposed using the millenium as the major version and the year-of-millennium as the minor version, with the implcation that they would be followed by the usual release and stable numbers. The main disadvantage of this proposal, as I see it, is it will suffer the "largish meaningless number" problem in another decade or two. In <487FC213.9030604@altrux.me.uk>, Alastair Stevens proposed dropping the ".6" and proceeding with a three-level numbering scheme: 2.6.26.s, 2.27.s, 2.28.s, ... In <200807180823.m6I8NIo27365@inv.it.uc3m.es>, Peter T. Breuer proposed switching to a three-level numbering scheme and resetting the middle number when useful [which I suppose might mean a major feature change or just a desire to avoid largish meaningless numbers]. I assume this sould give a sequence like: 2.6.26.s, 2.8.s, 2.9.s, 2.10.s, Craig Milo Rogers -- 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/