From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754192Ab0JYJIT (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Oct 2010 05:08:19 -0400 Received: from mail-bw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]:43453 "EHLO mail-bw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752336Ab0JYJIQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Oct 2010 05:08:16 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=v200orj+OQJl7XLYPB2k8kAC8NSViB2GFJhArdM+yprVmGp+qaZzZ4FysIW6vMc4ss khXlCSvqDLgooREEzre0mAkulsXGr1ru1qh371g07mU3DobpqbVBRc763OuOLLHhRD4x UqU5sWsBTF84BKQMwwmPC3iVkCwx7FLsUdiLQ= Message-ID: <4CC548F8.1090307@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 11:08:08 +0200 From: Tejun Heo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:1.9.2.11) Gecko/20101013 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Al Viro CC: kevin granade , "Artem S. Tashkinov" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: On Linux numbering scheme References: <18536664.253751287691209904.JavaMail.root@mail-zbox20.bo3.lycos.com> <28654042.253821287691362834.JavaMail.root@mail-zbox20.bo3.lycos.com> <20101022020006.GF19804@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20101022020006.GF19804@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 10/22/2010 04:00 AM, Al Viro wrote: > 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? Agreed. These days, I use just the last digit, as in kernel 36, in casual contexts. It's a number as good as any other. I don't think it needs to be changed actively. If the 2.6. prefix is bothering, just use the last number and maybe that will become semi-official in the future, or maybe not. Doesn't really matter. -- tejun