Re: [kernel.org mirrors] [kernel.org users] XZ Migration discussion

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>]

On 02/12/2010 12:31 PM, Sleddens, J.P.G. wrote:
>>>> On 12-2-2010 at 20:03, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
>> On 02/12/2010 06:01 AM, Jean Delvare wrote:
>>> 3* Create a new subdirectory for every 2.6.x kernel, and move all the
>>> related files there. This would shrink the main index drastically, and
>>> each subdirectory would have a reasonable size (except maybe 2.6.16 and
>>> 2.6.27.) Oddly enough this has been done for the files under testing/
>>> already, so I am curious why we don't do it for the release files (and
>>> the testing/incr/ files, while we're at it.)
>>
>> Well, part of the reason why is that we're functionally "stuck" on 2.6;
>> a prefix which really has lost all meaning.
>>
>> It might open up the question if we shouldn't just do a Solaris and drop
>> the leading 2 (so the next kernel would be 6.33) or call the kernel
>> after that 3.0 instead of 2.6.34, and then 3.1 instead of 2.6.35.
> 
> I remember the whole LKML discussion about this a few years back:
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/10/15/377 
> 
> The whole year.version   or year/month versioning Greg HK proposed
> made a lot of sense to me.  It would also solve our problem with the 2.6
> directory just growing and growing as the year versioning would make a
> natural hierarchy which keeps going no matter what.

Note also that every time this conversation happens it starts to pull
away in different directions, and as a result nothing happens.

I'm going to stick my foot in it and state the following: I think
incremental numbers work well, and everyone are used to them.  It
doesn't seem to be the major issue with the current scheme; the issue
with the current scheme is that we have one or two levels too much.

	-hpa