From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265102AbTLRLiF (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Dec 2003 06:38:05 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265105AbTLRLiF (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Dec 2003 06:38:05 -0500 Received: from [220.224.36.57] ([220.224.36.57]:18560 "EHLO balram.gotdns.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265102AbTLRLiD (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Dec 2003 06:38:03 -0500 Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:06:28 +0000 From: Balram Adlakha To: 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: <20031218170628.GA3129@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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? -- - ( ) ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail X / \