Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751813AbYJSQaA (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Oct 2008 12:30:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751452AbYJSQ3w (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Oct 2008 12:29:52 -0400 Received: from mail.lang.hm ([64.81.33.126]:46313 "EHLO bifrost.lang.hm" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751359AbYJSQ3v (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Oct 2008 12:29:51 -0400 Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2008 09:29:54 -0700 (PDT) From: david@lang.hm X-X-Sender: dlang@asgard.lang.hm To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" cc: Jiri Kosina , 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: <200810191451.24342.rjw@sisk.pl> Message-ID: References: <20081016002509.GA25868@kroah.com> <200810191451.24342.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: 1833 Lines: 44 On Sun, 19 Oct 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Sunday, 19 of October 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). >> >>>> 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. >> >> And 2.x+1.y-rcZ+1 immediately following 2.x.y-rcZ really hurts my eyes :) > > Hm, why would that happen? with the date based numbers, that was one of the things that 'could' happen as the year changed (2008.5.0-rc4 would be followed by 2009.1.0-rc5) 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/