Re: [kernel.org users] XZ Migration discussion

[Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>]

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:03:26AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > 3* Create a new subdirectory for every 2.6.x kernel, and move all the
> > related files there. This would shrink the main index drastically, and
> > each subdirectory would have a reasonable size (except maybe 2.6.16 and
> > 2.6.27.) Oddly enough this has been done for the files under testing/
> > already, so I am curious why we don't do it for the release files (and
> > the testing/incr/ files, while we're at it.)
> 
> Well, part of the reason why is that we're functionally "stuck" on 2.6;
> a prefix which really has lost all meaning.
> 
> It might open up the question if we shouldn't just do a Solaris and drop
> the leading 2 (so the next kernel would be 6.33) or call the kernel
> after that 3.0 instead of 2.6.34, and then 3.1 instead of 2.6.35.

Damn, we forgot to have that fight at Kernel Summit last year.

I'm in favour of the 3.0 / 3.1 / 3.2 with stable@ being responsible for
3.0.1, 3.0.2, 3.1.1, etc.

-- 
Matthew Wilcox				Intel Open Source Technology Centre
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours.  We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."