Re: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change

Rob Landley
2008-10-17T01:25:56Z

On Wednesday 15 October 2008 19:25:09 Greg KH wrote:
> Hi,
>
> You brought this topic up a few months ago, and passed it off as
> something we would discuss at the kernel summit. But that never
> happened, so I figured I'd bring it up again here.
>
> So, as someone who constantly is dealing with kernel version numbers all
> the time with the -stable trees, our current numbering scheme is a pain
> a times. How about this proposal instead?

I don't understand, what exactly is a pain about it? (I can't tell why a new
one is better if you don't say what you're objecting to about the old one...)

> Benefits of this is it more accuratly represents to people just how old
> the kernel they are currently running is (2.6.9 would be have been
> 2004.9.0 on this naming scheme.)

Benefits is plural, but I seem to have missed the other ones. Or is that the
only issue, wanting to put a more prominent "best if used by" date in the
name ala Windows 95?

Rob