From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754801Ab0JYJ4M (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Oct 2010 05:56:12 -0400 Received: from mail-bw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]:51315 "EHLO mail-bw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753788Ab0JYJ4L (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Oct 2010 05:56:11 -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=iOxlAeCyVmKXVy2r8uE5MXWzdo5l6j1W9Kj2ApNmdOWkh4swqltP3IKv6B8ZnuFRxx DdxeX/55bMHCwcYMghXn1d6MS0nmeeIxDPROyRcQn7J9Ye14ZpIu64AZ557GANyQ9u9T f/OCyoUffsada1Ob7Wisq4DSykdYxr4oZyuRw= Message-ID: <4CC55436.4010302@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 11:56:06 +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: "Artem S. Tashkinov" CC: kevin granade , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Al Viro Subject: Re: On Linux numbering scheme References: <234909.335371287999912985.JavaMail.root@mail-zbox20.bo3.lycos.com> In-Reply-To: <234909.335371287999912985.JavaMail.root@mail-zbox20.bo3.lycos.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 10/25/2010 11:45 AM, Artem S. Tashkinov wrote: > That's my point. "2.6" prefix is totally meaningless nowadays. I just > want to rejuvenate the numbering scheme and make it easy to understand > and comprehend. What's the difference between .16 and .36? Besides, I > just think these huge numbers look unsightly. Do you know any other > piece of software which has the same huge numbers? Well, there's no difference between 16 and 36, so what would be the rationale for changing it? The only reason is that it's unsightly and uncommon, but, if you ask me, 36 is _much_ closer to 42 and so is _much_ better. The glory days of kernel 42 are coming. Lo and behold. Also, it costs to change numbering scheme. Think about all the scripts, distros, poor admins and technical writers (and the dolphins and fishes). If 2.6. is too ugly and useless, let's let it wither away in places it doesn't matter. No reason to cause disruption without any real benefit. Thanks. -- tejun