From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751943Ab1AIMyy (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Jan 2011 07:54:54 -0500 Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([75.180.132.122]:50921 "EHLO cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751843Ab1AIMyx (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Jan 2011 07:54:53 -0500 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=uESSSoDEku2quKX/oFXS2Smn5+55LTFcWFr5T5T8nFs= c=1 sm=0 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=uMtljfmLDVLoqQOk5K3MRw==:17 a=tBb2bbeoAAAA:8 a=IyxiOcA9AAAA:8 a=YuHknOXIayWndvN2_T8A:9 a=WVmArTtOvVSbcyId_khzh6dZuWsA:4 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=YuKU6ANggZ8A:10 a=oRKvI3aUKtQ-dFsz:21 a=ooRbV1yxMMBimkzn:21 a=uMtljfmLDVLoqQOk5K3MRw==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 68.204.193.27 Message-ID: <4D29B01A.6020807@cfl.rr.com> Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2011 07:54:50 -0500 From: Mark Hounschell Reply-To: dmarkh@cfl.rr.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20101125 SUSE/3.0.11 Thunderbird/3.0.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Greg KH CC: "Artem S. Tashkinov" , Geert Uytterhoeven , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Claudio Scordino Subject: Re: On Linux numbering scheme References: <32869803.14581294498166043.JavaMail.root@mail-zbox20.bo3.lycos.com> <20110108161156.GB16090@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <20110108161156.GB16090@suse.de> 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 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" wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 09:31, Claudio Scordino >>> 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