Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752606AbYJSBus (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 Oct 2008 21:50:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752060AbYJSBuk (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 Oct 2008 21:50:40 -0400 Received: from mail.lang.hm ([64.81.33.126]:56521 "EHLO bifrost.lang.hm" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752055AbYJSBuk (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 Oct 2008 21:50:40 -0400 Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2008 18:50:27 -0700 (PDT) From: david@lang.hm X-X-Sender: dlang@asgard.lang.hm To: Jiri Kosina cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Greg KH , Alan Cox , Steven Noonan , Adrian Bunk , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20081016002509.GA25868@kroah.com> <20081017204723.15114eaa@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20081017214409.GB3585@kroah.com> <200810180049.19014.rjw@sisk.pl> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (DEB 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1785 Lines: 44 On Sun, 19 Oct 2008, Jiri Kosina wrote: > On Fri, 17 Oct 2008, david@lang.hm wrote: > >>> Surely some scripts will start to break as soon as the third number gets >>> three digits. >> we've had three digit numbers in the third position before (2.3 and 2.5 >> went well past three digits IIRC) > > Did we? I only recall 2.5.7[something] and 2.3.5[something] (plus special > 2.3.99 release). I know some versions have (I remember deploying 2.1.116 on a box across the country with no way to get at it afterwords) >>> Actually, I thought we could continue to use a w.x.y.z numbering >>> scheme, but in such a way that: >>> w = ($year - 2000) / 10 + 2 (so that we start from 2) >>> x = $year % 10 >>> y = (number of major release in $year) >>> z = (number of stable version for major release w.x.y) >>> Then, the first major release in 2009 would be 2.9.1 and its first >>> -stable "child" would become 2.9.1.1. In turn, the first major >>> release in 2010 could be 3.0.1 and so on. >> if you want the part of the version number to increment based on the year, >> just make it the year and don't complicate things. > > In addition to that, having the kernel version dependent on year doesn't > really seem to make much sense to me. Simply said, I don't see any > relation of kernel source code contents to the current date in whatever > calendar system. it does give an indication of how out of date the kernel you are using is. > And 2.x+1.y-rcZ+1 immediately following 2.x.y-rcZ really hurts my eyes :) that I agree with. David Lang -- 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/