From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754971AbYJPPfZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Oct 2008 11:35:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751544AbYJPPfP (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Oct 2008 11:35:15 -0400 Received: from www.church-of-our-saviour.ORG ([69.25.196.31]:46601 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751507AbYJPPfO (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Oct 2008 11:35:14 -0400 Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 11:35:12 -0400 From: Theodore Tso To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change Message-ID: <20081016153512.GE12962@mit.edu> Mail-Followup-To: Theodore Tso , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20081016002509.GA25868@kroah.com> <20081016142619.GA3756@tatooine.rebelbase.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081016142619.GA3756@tatooine.rebelbase.local> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@mit.edu X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on thunker.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 04:26:19PM +0200, markus reichelt wrote: > Why not just keep it? It has worked so far, and from a strictly > end-user point of view I cannot see any advantages at all with a new > scheme. The ideas mentioned so far don't cut it either. I'd cast a vote for keeping it as well. "2.6" is actually a great marker so that people know that it's highly likely the version number is for the Linux kernel. Contrast "I'm running 2.6.27" versus "I'm running 27" (huh, what does that mean?) or "I'm running the 27 kernel" or "I'm running Linux kernel version 27" or worse yet "I'm running 2008-03". Something like "2.6.27" is just easier to say, and less prone to misunderstanding/confusion. Let's just leave things the way they are. - Ted