From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265110AbTLRLoE (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Dec 2003 06:44:04 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265111AbTLRLoE (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Dec 2003 06:44:04 -0500 Received: from gprs178-245.eurotel.cz ([160.218.178.245]:42882 "EHLO midnight.ucw.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265110AbTLRLoB (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Dec 2003 06:44:01 -0500 Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:44:07 +0100 From: Vojtech Pavlik To: Balram Adlakha Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Can't wait for '2.8 or 3.0',or maybe: 2.8 followed by 2.10 ?? Message-ID: <20031218114407.GA365@ucw.cz> References: <20031218170628.GA3129@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031218170628.GA3129@localhost.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 05:06:28PM +0000, Balram Adlakha wrote: > John Bradford (john@grabjohn.com) wrote: > > > I think we should consider introduce a policy of having .*beaver.* > > names for each 2.6.x release, and maybe drop the version numbers > > altogether during 2.7. > > > > John. > > Sounds like a cool idea, but how are we supposed to know which "name" > is newer? Based on a logical storyline? ;) -- Vojtech Pavlik SuSE Labs, SuSE CR