Re: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change

["Giacomo A. Catenazzi" <cate@cateee.net>]

Greg KH wrote:
> We number the kernel based on the year, and the numbers of releases we
> have done this year:
> 	YEAR.NUMBER.MINOR_RELEASE
> 
> For example, the first release in 2009 would be called:
> 	2009.0.0
> The second:
> 	2009.1.0
> 
> If we want to be a bit more "non-zero-counting" friendly: we can start
> at "1" for the number:
> 	2009.1.0 for the first release
> 	2009.2.0 for the second.
> 
> Then the stable releases can increment the minor number:
> 	2009.1.1 for the first stable release
> 	2009.1.2 for the second.
> 	and so on.
> 
> 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.)
> 
> Yes, we can handle the major/minor macros in the kernel to provide a
> compatible number so that automated scripts will not break, that's not a
> big deal.
> 
> Any thoughts?

What about:
- rc releases: a 2009.5.0-rc4 become suddenly 2010.0.0-rc5 ?
- a stable version in January of a kernel released in December
   still has the old year? (I hope yes, but it could confuse users.)
- when (if) we need a big innovative (or incompatible) kernel
   change, how to mark old and new kernels?

ciao
	cate