Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2008 21:30:27 +0200
Message-Id: <200807191930.m6JJURC12038@inv.it.uc3m.es>
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <ptb@inv.it.uc3m.es>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?
In-Reply-To: <20080719080002.GA11272@isi.edu>
User-Agent: tin/1.4.4-20000803 ("Vet for the Insane") (UNIX) (Linux/2.2.15 
	(i686))
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1203
Lines: 38

In article <20080719080002.GA11272@isi.edu> you wrote:
> 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,

Actually he said

   rename 2.6.28 to 2.8.0
or 
   rename 2.6.29 to 2.9.0
or
   rename 2.6.30 to 3.0.0

i.e. .. whatever you are doing now, just drop the first two numbers (the
"2.6" bit) since they seem to be constant.

I don't know where the idea you propose above came from, and I don't
quite understand it either!

Remember that Linus' only objective is to have smaller numbers, which
may therefore

 1) be memorable
 2) be good advertising copy
 3) be meaningful

and that was the only intention of my scheme: "drop the constant bit".

Peter
--
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/