From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265254AbTLRQk5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:40:57 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265255AbTLRQk5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:40:57 -0500 Received: from tmr-02.dsl.thebiz.net ([216.238.38.204]:34575 "EHLO gatekeeper.tmr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265254AbTLRQk4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:40:56 -0500 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Path: gatekeeper.tmr.com!davidsen From: davidsen@tmr.com (bill davidsen) Newsgroups: mail.linux-kernel Subject: Re: Can't wait for '2.8 or 3.0',or maybe: 2.8 followed by 2.10 ?? Date: 18 Dec 2003 16:29:23 GMT Organization: TMR Associates, Schenectady NY Message-ID: References: <20031218170628.GA3129@localhost.localdomain> <200312181149.25571.grahame@notofthisearth.freeserve.co.uk> X-Trace: gatekeeper.tmr.com 1071764963 13040 192.168.12.62 (18 Dec 2003 16:29:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@tmr.com Originator: davidsen@gatekeeper.tmr.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In article <200312181149.25571.grahame@notofthisearth.freeserve.co.uk>, Grahame White wrote: | On Thursday 18 December 2003 17:06, Balram Adlakha wrote: | > John Bradford (john@grabjohn.com) wrote: | > > 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? | | Well let's see there could be : | | 2.beaver.rolling | 2.beaver.sparking | 2.beaver.toking | 2.beaver.passing | 2.beaver.stoned | 2.beaver.tripping I take back what I just said about letting someone else name the subversions ;-) -- bill davidsen CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.