Re: On Linux numbering scheme

[Mark Hounschell <dmarkh@cfl.rr.com>]

On 01/08/2011 11:11 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 08, 2011 at 09:49:26AM -0500, Artem S. Tashkinov wrote:
>> ----- "Geert Uytterhoeven" <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 09:31, Claudio Scordino
>>> <claudio@evidence.eu.com> wrote:
>>>>>   As time passes by, the Linux numbering scheme makes even less
>>> sense.
>>>>>   Some time ago there was a discussion on LKML about a new
>>> numbering
>>>>>   scheme but it didn't come to any positive conclusion and then
>>> the
>>>>>   subject was forgotten entirely. Not meaning to raise a clamour
>>> here
>>>>>   (and I suppose I represent a large group of Linux users here).
>>> I'm
>>>>>   willing to suggest a numbering scheme which I hope will answer
>>> all
>>>>>   known complaints and criticism.
>>>>
>>>> This seems to be a periodically recurrent topic on the list.
>>>>
>>>> If I've correctly understood all points of view, there are currently
>>> two
>>>> groups of developers:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Those who want to maintain the current numbering scheme, because
>>> they
>>>> feel comfortable with it, and because they can easily understand
>>> the
>>>> number of releases between one release and another.
>>>>
>>>> 2. Those who prefer having a scheme somehow related to the date, so
>>> they
>>>> can easily understand when a certain kernel has been released (i.e.
>>> how
>>>> "old" it is).
>>>>
>>>> Does really exist a numbering scheme that can satisfy both groups
>>> of
>>>> people ? Probably not.
>>>>
>>>> My only idea would be to maintain the usual numbering scheme, and
>>> just
>>>> replace the second number (6) with the year of release.
>>>>
>>>> For example:
>>>>
>>>>        2.6.36 would be 2.10.36
>>>>
>>>>        2.6.37 would be 2.11.37
>>>>
>>>>        2.6.38 would be 2.11.38
>>>>
>>>>        and so on...
>>>>
>>>> This way, you put some information about the year of release
>>> without
>>>> loosing all the benefits of the current scheme.
>>>>
>>>> But this means having two independent incremental numbers, which
>>> maybe
>>>> is a too insane scheme.
>>>
>>> Then why not drop the leading "2." completely?
>>>
>>
>> This will break too many user space scripts/applications which expect
>> 2.x.x.x numbers.
> 
> What userspace scripts/applications expect numbers like that?  How do
> they handle releases like what Linus just did (2.6.37)?
> 

I've often wondered why that case wouldn't be done as 2.6.37.0 ???

Mark