From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753074Ab0JVCAL (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 21 Oct 2010 22:00:11 -0400
Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:32943 "EHLO
	ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751302Ab0JVCAI (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 21 Oct 2010 22:00:08 -0400
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 03:00:06 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: kevin granade <kevin.granade@gmail.com>
Cc: "Artem S. Tashkinov" <t.artem@lycos.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: On Linux numbering scheme
Message-ID: <20101022020006.GF19804@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <18536664.253751287691209904.JavaMail.root@mail-zbox20.bo3.lycos.com>
 <28654042.253821287691362834.JavaMail.root@mail-zbox20.bo3.lycos.com>
 <AANLkTimqNW7zArcjtOkBvrn-dk=YE0_RG+u3yoMDTjwV@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimqNW7zArcjtOkBvrn-dk=YE0_RG+u3yoMDTjwV@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 07:06:23PM -0500, kevin granade wrote:

> Any particular reason not to continue the date-oriented format and
> have the third number be the numerical representation of the month
> rather than an incrementing numbering of the releases?  It would still
> be monotonically increasing, which is the only requirement, right?

Why do we need to change it, anyway?

Al, fully expecting to be whined at for discouraging potential contributors
and horribly damaging Linux ecosystem by artificially increasing the entry
barrier, or something...