Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755440AbYJPIV6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Oct 2008 04:21:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754910AbYJPIVr (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Oct 2008 04:21:47 -0400 Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2]:54339 "EHLO ciao.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754908AbYJPIVq (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Oct 2008 04:21:46 -0400 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: el es Subject: Re: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 08:21:35 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <20081016002509.GA25868@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org User-Agent: Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/) X-Loom-IP: 86.166.207.29 (Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.0.3) Gecko/2008092417 Firefox/3.0.3) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2445 Lines: 83 Greg KH kroah.com> writes: > > Hi, > > You brought this topic up a few months ago, and passed it off as > something we would discuss at the kernel summit. But that never > happened, so I figured I'd bring it up again here. > > So, as someone who constantly is dealing with kernel version numbers all > the time with the -stable trees, our current numbering scheme is a pain > a times. How about this proposal instead? > > We number the kernel based on the year, and the numbers of releases we > have done this year: > YEAR.NUMBER.MINOR_RELEASE > I strongly disagree about the full year indication in front ;) and bring up my older idea of the scheme to be s.yy.ww.tt, that is : s - series, as it is now (freedom to Linus to declare a whole 'new generation' ;) if he wanted ) yy - two (in a hundred years, three) digits of the year Now the interesting part begins which is ww - the number of the week of the release. This will be between 1 and 52 (53) tt - the number of the week of stable release. As above. It is: - most similar to the scheme used so far, - informative : the ww and tt numbers are the week numbers of when the actual release HAPPENED, not when it is predicted. - easy to put some automation into it (git release HEAD now ) could branch the current and rename it accordingly (not that I know how to do it, just imagination) - (mod) in case there are more than one release in a week, letters could be used (e.g. 2.08.44[a..z]) in as many count as needed (2.08.45deadbeef.50sodead )(or put the git commit indication there ?) - in case the stable releases go forth into next year or over, the stable team puts additional .yy.ww instead of their own .tt (like 2.08.45.09.05) (yes I know it is long) - the -rc releases go as usual beginning with latest mainline release (2.08.45-rcX, X being a number as it is now) - dubbing behavior of silicon manufacturers who print the actual week number of production onto their chips - imagine looking at a chip and quick glancing at the kernel version number and _knowing_ it should be OK ;) My £0.02 ;) > > Any thoughts? > > Let the bike-shedding begin! > > thanks, > > greg k-h > Lukasz -- 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/