From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265244AbTLRRDO (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:03:14 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265253AbTLRRDN (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:03:13 -0500 Received: from e3.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.103]:49652 "EHLO e3.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265244AbTLRRDF (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:03:05 -0500 Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:33:53 -0800 From: "Martin J. Bligh" To: Chris Meadors , Linux Kernel Subject: Re: Can't wait for '2.8 or 3.0',or maybe: 2.8 followed by 2.10 ?? Message-ID: <72060000.1071768833@flay> In-Reply-To: <1071765527.12681.5.camel@clubneon.priv.hereintown.net> References: <20031218170628.GA3129@localhost.localdomain> <1071765527.12681.5.camel@clubneon.priv.hereintown.net> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.1.2 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >> > I think we should consider introduce a policy of having .*beaver.* >> > names for each 2.6.x release, and maybe drop the version numbers >> > altogether during 2.7. >> > >> > John. >> >> Sounds like a cool idea, but how are we supposed to know which "name" >> is newer? > > The names could be chosen alphabetically. Rooster was mentioned for > 2.7, but since 2.6 is beaver, I propose cock, as 'c' follows 'b'. Oh great. So now we've progressed from flamewars to cock fighting on LKML. M.