Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

Andrea Arcangeli
2005-03-04T00:10:20Z

On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 03:17:52PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> That's the only way it _can_ work. The maintainer of 2.6.x.y shouldn't be

Andrew, what about my suggestion of shifting left x.y of 8 bits? ;) Do
we risk the magic 2.7 number to get us stuck in unstable mode for 2
years instead of 2 months? Doesn't 2.6.x.y pose the same risk but
by also breaking the numbering and the stable kernel identification for
no good reason? (ignoring the "2.6." part that carries no useful info
anymore ;)